System, apparatus and method for supporting formal verification of informal inference on a computer

ABSTRACT

System, apparatus and method may permit users to collaboratively engage in inference on a computer and visualize structure of that inference, and provide a formal verification system for informal argumentation and inference. The system and method may generate and allow for modification of graphical structures that represent sequences of structured rational argumentation; and automatically monitor, compute and represent ratings or scores of nodes within the structure; indicate whether a node is supported by a chain of argumentation that has not been validly rebutted. The graphical structures may be displayed to bring into focus contentious and significant underlying points within an argument, and simulate the effects of alternative resolutions of these contentious points. The graphical displays may provide a transparent verification to other users of the state of what can be demonstrated and refuted, allow discovery of weak or missing points in a logical argument, and allow rational inference by users.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

The present application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No.14/738,199 which claims benefit to U.S. Provisional Application No.62/012,682, filed Jun. 16, 2014, U.S. Provisional Application No.62/034,574, filed Aug. 7, 2014 and U.S. Provisional No. 62/081,823,filed Nov. 19, 2014, the disclosures of which are all incorporatedherein by reference.

BACKGROUND

In numerous areas from Vaccine Safety to Climate Change to NeoclassicalEconomics, dissenters argue that the scientific literature proves themajority view is wrong, that the scientific literature actually impliesvery different conclusions than those normally believed and taught.Moreover, numerous historic examples are known even within the hardsciences and away from policy questions, where the substantial majorityof scientific opinion was confused for a period about what the actualimport of the scientific literature was, as dissenters of the dayalready understood. Whether the dissenters turn out to be right or wrongin the current set of controversies, it is unfortunate that theliterature is in a state where what is known, is so little transparentlyresolved. How is one to judge who is right, save by reading andunderstanding the literature myself, a time consuming and error proneprocess requiring sophisticated training?

Any serious scientific literature contains hundreds or thousands or morepublished papers. Determining what the logical import of all thosepapers might be pertaining to a question such as: “Should we expect theworld to warm 2 degrees Celsius in the next decades?” is a problem forwhich there is currently no good solution. One method society uses todeal with problems like this is appointing expert panels like theInternational Panel on Climate Change, but such panels are expensive torun and may be subject to group think and/or political influence, and inany case clearly have not inspired universal confidence in the resultsof their pronouncements.

Moreover, there is a substantial literature indicating that suchproblems may be caused or exacerbated by underappreciated aspects ofhuman group psychology. For example, in The Crowd, an 1895 book thatgreatly influenced world leaders in the 20th century, Gustav Le Bonpointed out that what he called a “psychological crowd” would oftenform, in which the individuals comprising it would lose much of theirrationality, deferring to others' judgment in the crowd, and jump fromimage to image in constructing arguments without properly checkingwhether one step logically follows from the other. Isolated individualsmay exist in the crowd who perceive the flaws in the crowd's reasoning,but they may often be unable to make their voices heard by the majoritythat assumes the crowd is right.

Therefore, there exists a need to address phenomena like those Le Bondescribed which have afflicted society quite broadly.

SUMMARY

This disclosure provides system, apparatus and method for formalizedverification of informal arguments, in which whether some statements mayrationally be believed given the current state of knowledge may beestablished and displayed in a transparent way.

Mathematicians may often wish to establish whether some theorem can beproved given some axioms. One may often write a proof as a series ofarguments establishing lemmas from the axioms and then arguments thatestablish the final result based on lemmas. Having written out such aproof, however, other mathematicians may need to read and understand itto know if there are any flaws in it, and sometimes there may be error.Formal verification systems like the Coq and the PVS programminglanguages permit some proofs to be written in mathematically preciseterms by skillful programmers so that the proof of each lemma and theproof of the final result can all be automatically verified, and theprogram by displaying this result may give other mathematicians whohaven't read and understood all the details more confidence in thevalidity of the result.

This disclosure provides system, apparatus and method that can be usedfor a loosely analogous process in informal inference, and can be usedto discover and transparently display whether statements of interestshould be rationally believed given the available evidence, for example,whether the statement “Vaccines are Safe” should be rationally believedgiven what is published in the scientific literature, and to whatconfidence level it should be believed.

To that end, the system may support the ability of users to constructargument trees in which arguments may be entered in natural languagetext (or possibly including data, for example images or graphs orlinks). These arguments may expand into graph-like structures as do theformalized proof structures in mathematics, because a user may entersome statements of axioms or assumptions, and some arguments that maydepend on these assumptions and that may be said to be arguments for thevalidity of some other statements—analogous to lemmas in formalmathematics, and so on finally giving an argument or arguments for thefinal result. As actually verifying the arguments are correct may beimpossible even in principle, the disclosure may treat the entered(received from users) arguments and statements as black boxes. Users mayenter what they choose because the system does not analyze their entriesto perform verification. Instead of verifying that the arguments arecorrect, the system may support the ability of other users to challengearguments. The system may compute and display whether statements thathave been entered and arguments that have been entered may have beenestablished based solely on arguments that have not been challenged, andusing statements that nobody disputes or has argued for the negation of.

With these capabilities of the disclosure, confidence may be provided toobservers that statements have a consensus: statements for which thereis an argument nobody disputes using only components (statements andarguments) nobody disputes. The system may provide the confidence onlyby verifying no essential challenges have been made, by maintaining anupdated list of what statements and arguments are validly establishedwithout challenge at any point in their demonstrations.

In one embodiment, when challenges are made, users may edit thechallenged arguments in response. In fact, it may be expected that achallenge against an argument will include an argument against orquestion about said challenged argument. The challenged argument maythen be edited or expanded in response to the question, after which thechallenge would no longer be considered, assuming the challenger agreedthat the solution was responsive and removed her challenge. A counterchallenge may also be made against the challenge itself, or againstdemonstrations offered for its validity. These counter challenges mayexplain in what way the initial challenge was mistaken, or inconjunction with an edit of the challenged argument, explain in what waythe challenged argument has now been corrected. In this way, the systemmay support the editing and evolution of argument trees, seeking toestablish as much as the users may be able to agree to, and setting outas well where their differences lie.

In a further embodiment, the system may further or alternativelycalculate, update, and display which statements and arguments that havebeen entered are established using only arguments and statements thathaven't been validly challenged. A statement has been validlychallenged, when it has a challenge that is established using onlystatements and arguments that have not themselves been validlychallenged. The definition is reached because eventually one comes tonodes (which may each correspond to a statement, argument, challenge,citation, assumption, or test) that have not been challenged at all.This concept allows challenges to the challenge argument itself or toits assumptions or to their arguments' assumptions to restore thenot-validly-challenged status of a statement, e.g., a rating ofTentative Establishment (TE). What such rating may certify is that if anode (and hence its corresponding declaration or statement) isTentatively Established, there is a proposed line of argumentationproving it where nobody has been able to raise and defend a chain ofargumentation against any link of the argument tree establishing thenode, except for challenge arguments that are themselves in turn refutedat a critical point in their counter-argument by a TentativelyEstablished counter-counter argument against them.

According to an aspect of the disclosure, all of the arguments andstatements and challenges entered may be described as a graph, using amodel that considers arguments as having one or more result statements,and zero or more assumption statements, and draws directed edges from anode corresponding to a given argument to a node or nodes correspondingto its result statement or statements, and draws directed edges to theargument node from nodes corresponding to any of its assumptionstatements. The graph likewise may be used to display challengearguments, which may be an argument a result of which is the claim someother declaration and its associated node are invalid. Challengearguments may correspond to a node with a directed edge toward the nodethey are challenging, and directed edges from nodes corresponding to thechallenge's assumptions and/or its' own challenges and/or arguments forits own validity and/or in some embodiments other classes of statementssuch as citations or tests or suggested edits. Statements includingresult statements may themselves also be arguments for other results, orassumptions of other arguments or results, or challenges to or tests ofother results, so that arguments may be supported by other arguments andthe graph may be a number of edges deep.

In according with an aspect of the disclosure, a system may include aprocessing device configured to: receive information indicatingstatements and arguments, which statement of the statements is anintended result of an argument, and which statement of the statements isan assumption of an argument; receive information indicating challengesto the statements or the arguments; establish a correspondence betweenthe statements and the arguments to nodes in a graph; and rate whether afirst node of the nodes is established by an argument graph using onlyassumptions and arguments that are not validly challenged.

As argument graphs are challenged and edited, it may be anticipated thatthe argument graphs may become more detailed, with more explicitintermediate steps, and thus that the system may facilitate betterconstruction of argument graphs. At any given time there may be a readyvisual display of what portions of the graph are established usingarguments of a given unchallenged status—for example, established usingonly argument subgraphs that are not validly challenged. This mayfacilitate cooperative inference over time, refining the product andmaking clear at any given time what may be agreed upon.

In one alternative, the disclosure may provide a number of mechanisms toavoid problems associated with users who may post frivolous challenges,for example duplicating challenges that had previously been posted andrebutted or that had no comprehensible argument at all, or postnon-responsive responses, just responding pro-forma to remove achallenge without actually addressing its concern, forcing another userto waste time reestablishing the challenge. For example, the system maybe often be used within a closed group, such as an individual workingthings out for himself, or the employees of a company, or members of asociety, or among professional scientists, or members with a log-in at aparticular web-site who may even have been forced to use real names inorder to get a log in. Challenges and Edits may be tagged with the nameof a user, and users actions may also be available to be read, so thatusers may be concerned about their reputation. This may motivatecollaborative rather than destructive behavior. Users may all genuinelybe interested in collaboration to arrive at truth. Also, the system mayrefuse to accept challenges not supplied with an argument of someminimal length, or that passes a spam filter, and likewise may refuse toaccept responses that do not make edits. The system may also supportreports that some responses or users are frivolous, allowing the graphor the system to be cleaned by purging one or the other, in the event adecision to do so is made by a moderator or, some embodiments maysupport a vote of users on whether a node is frivolous. It is also worthnoting that by soliciting a group of learned and motivated collaboratorsto construct the graph giving many interesting conclusions for a field,using the embodiment, one may construct a transparent representation ofwhat is and is not demonstrated within the field.

As graphs are edited, it may become difficult to post a substantivechallenge, or when a difficult challenge is posted, to post a responsethat the user may believe is valid, because all the rational argumentsand responses that anybody can think of, have already been posted. Atthis point what can be established about the question may be laid out onthe graph, and it may be a useful and transparent publication of thesame. Note that it may be easier for users or observers, or moderatorsif any were employed, to judge whether a challenge is substantive or aresponse is substantive, than it would be for them to judge whether anargument is correct or not. Thus, the system may serve to facilitate theconfidence of the users in the ultimate results as well theirappreciation of the relative merits and abilities of the other users.

In another alternative, the system may also facilitate the teaching andlearning of critical thinking and argumentation. To propose a strongargument graph for some proposition, one may wish first to think of thearguments for that proposition, and the assumptions they are making, andthe arguments for those assumptions, and the counter-arguments againstor challenges to the argument or the proposition or the assumptions ofthe argument, and the challenges to the challenges, and so on. Thesystem may provide a means for students to diagram all these pieces ofan argument and indeed a field or subject, and to receive directfeedback from teachers or other students on what they had missed orwhere their points were less than logical in the form of challenges orsuggested edits at these points in their argument.

The system may facilitate the posting of rewards for successful ornon-trivial challenges so that someone wishing to establish a statementis proved could boast that nobody had been able to disrupt its statuseven with a reward offered, and so that someone wishing to recruitresearchers to establish such confidence on a question of their interestcould do so. A non-trivial challenge or other node may be defined invarious ways, but in particular it may be defined depending on theembodiment as one that changes the establishment status of the root nodeof the graph, or the topic node of the graph, or some significantdesignated node, when said non-trivial challenge (or in someembodiments, other node) is posted onto the graph. Another criteria thatmay be considered important is that in order to be considered successfulor non-trivial and qualify the node itself may be required to betentatively established for a period of time, or for a high fraction ofa period of time, such as being tentatively established at least ¾ ofthe time for a month.

A conjunction of the above conditions, changing the status of the rootwhen posted and remaining TE for ¾ of the time for 3 months or someother threshold on maintaining tentative establishment status, maycomprise a test for reward qualification. Alternatively it may forexample be one that results in at least some number of nodes being addedto the graph before it is resolved, or at least some amount of textbeing added to a node, or which results in at least some period of timepassing before anyone responds. Payment of rewards for successfulresponses or challenges may also be useful to recruit industry expertsto build a reliable and well vetted set of inferences.

The system may also support paying rewards to users who post publicgraphs that gain large numbers of viewers, and whose average postedpublic graph gains a higher number of viewers than some threshold, suchas higher than half the public graphs posted do. A condition such asthis may reward users who provide interesting content and defend theirgraphs interactively and avoid cluttering the field with distractinggraphs nobody cares about. The relative importance of the two factorsmay contribute to the reward. Such rewards may include permission topost a number of new public graphs, thus seeding the field so that amajority of new graphs may be created by individuals skilled at creatinginteresting ones.

It is also possible that users posting frivolous responses may beidentified using spam filter technology or by a moderator and removedfrom the group. The system may also support the ability of users to viewthe graph, or of a moderator to display the graph, with the challengesof a particular user or set of users expunged.

In one alternative, the system may provide the ability to compute theestablishment status of all of the nodes under the hypothesis that oneor more challenges are ignored, or under the hypothesis that one or morenodes are considered True and unchallengable and any challenges of such“axiomatized nodes” may be ignored by the rating update. Suchdetermination may be referred to as axiomatizing the node or nodes, orthe axiomatized nodes are stipulated or postulated, because users maybehave as if it was an axiom that this node or nodes are True and thatany challenges of them are wrong. The system may then compute anddisplay the status of all the nodes under this assumption, but it maycarry along a notation indicating the axioms that have been assumed. Asa result, users, for example, may be able to analyze problems such asthe validity of a statement like “There is a 50% chance the earth willwarm 2 degrees by 2100” down to a set of small sub-questions on whichthey fundamentally disagree. Then those or other users may be able tosee, on a display, that the argument graph for the conclusion may be notvalidly challenged except for challenges on certain specific underlyingpoints, and users may then choose to believe the conclusion or not afterevaluating the specific challenged point(s) and the argument(s)challenging them for themselves, without however having to evaluate therest of the scientific literature.

It may be noted that in some embodiments, the system may compute arating of “tentatively established” (TE) as described above, thatdepends on the last challenge or argument added. Even after a debate hasbeen ongoing for a while and a large graph is built and has beenrelatively stable for a while, a new challenge or a new argument canchange the TE status of the conclusion. As such, the term “tentatively”is used in the name of the subject status. An advantage of the system isshowing which conclusions may be logically drawn using argument graphsthat nobody has objected to in a way that has not yet been rebutted in away nobody has validly objected to. A result or argument or challengemay be tentatively established when there is a chain of argumentationfor it, such that every challenge proposed to any critical link in saidchain of argumentation, is itself challenged in some critical link inits own chain of argumentation by a challenge that is tentativelyestablished, so that the challenge proposed to a critical link is itselfrated NOT Tentatively Established. Here the chain of argumentation mayinclude arguments and assumptions and challenges, and an argument,assumption, or challenge may be considered a critical link in theargument if it may be necessary for the chain of argumentation to implythat said result or argument or challenge is true in a model of logic.

The system may provide an alternative rating, or “citation rating”, fornodes in which the nodes may only be considered Tentatively Establishedif they are established by argument graphs grounded in citation nodesand have demonstrations not validly challenged by arguments grounded incitation nodes. If users then restrict citation nodes to a certainclass, e.g., nodes citing a paper in the peer-reviewed literature, thenthe rating may transparently display which nodes can be rationallydemonstrated by arguments based wholly on nodes in this class, e.g., inthe peer-reviewed literature.

For example, when a node or a statement is established by an argumentgraph, the argument graph may be a subgraph of the full graph that usershave constructed. For example when a node or a statement is establishedby an argument graph using only assumptions and arguments that are notvalidly challenged, this does not preclude validly challengedassumptions and arguments elsewhere in the graph. It does intend thatthere may be a subgraph composed of assumptions and arguments that arenot validly challenged (including by nodes in the full graph) thatestablish said node or statement.

Some embodiments may provide for the re-use of nodes in one graph thathave already been used in another graph, and may treat such a node asjoining the two graphs so that if the node is validly challenged in onegraph it becomes NOT-TE in the other (unless it is axiomatized in theother), and if it has an argument in either graph it needs at least oneTE argument in some graph to be considered TE and it may have the sameassumptions in both graphs. A node's ancestor subgraph may be thesubgraph (of the union of graphs} comprising those nodes that are thenode's ancestors in any graph. When the node is imported, its ancestorsubgraph (the subgraph (of the union of graphs} comprising the nodesthat are said imported node's ancestors in any graph) may be imported aswell, but may not be displayed unless a user selects a button to expandsaid imported node. Whether it is displayed or not, the importedancestor subgraph may be used by the system as a normal part of thegraph in computing ratings of the node.

In an alternative embodiment, the system may provide propagation of anumerical rating to nodes, that may for example represent an estimate ofthe likelihood the statement associated with the node holds, or theconfidence with which it should be believed.

The disclosure may provide a system where it can be established anddisplayed that a chain of arguments and results ends in a given claim,in such a way that it is demonstrated that no user has been able to lookat any link or assumption in the chain and raise an objection that hasnot been resolved. To this end, a system may provide users withcapabilities to create structured arguments, issue challenges, and torespond to challenges by editing arguments and by counter-challenging;and may maintain and display as this is done a status for the nodes,statements, and/or arguments indicating whether they are at presentestablished using only arguments and statements that have not beenvalidly challenged. In one embodiment, if some users have raisedobjections to certain points, the system may allow the criticalobjections to be isolated and displayed to users, and to support thecalculation and display of the consequences of alternative assumptionsabout the resolution of these questioned points, to what can beestablished throughout the graph.

In one embodiment, this disclosure pertains to a computer system toassist a user or users in inference, and in communication and display ofthe inferences and their proofs or arguments in a transparent manner sothat users may easily read them out and/or verify them. In the event ofmultiple users, the system may provide a platform guiding collaboration,and protect against interference if some of the users are malicious orless competent. It may be used online to coordinate efforts of multipleusers. It may also be designed to avoid and deal with quirks of grouppsychology that may impact inference of groups and individuals ingroups. It may also provide a resolution or negotiation method toproduce those inferences that disputing or skeptical parties maytransparently verify and agree to, and to help identify and isolate whatunderlying points they differ on.

In some embodiments, the aspects of the disclosure may be used in one ormore fact checking websites, where people may be able to come forverifiable and reliable answers to such issues, or for the purpose ofcontributing to the publication of such verifiable and reliable answers.The disclosure also may be used by corporations and other largeorganizations doing strategic planning, to avoid getting caught incrowd-think blunders. In addition, the disclosure may be used byindividuals, to organize their thoughts and make sure they have notmissed anything. Further, aspects of the disclosure may be used to teachor study the art of critical thinking.

The aspects of the disclosure may advantageously provide a tool thatsupports informal inference using natural language in contexts whereusers can only manage less formal arguments, but which at least ensuresthere are no logical holes in the argument that any person or system canspot. Also the disclosure may further support, in cases where disputantscannot ultimately agree, their ability to agree on as much as possible,and to refine the remaining disagreement to critical underlying points,and make transparent on what underlying points the difference lies andthe evidence for the respective sides.

In accordance with the present disclosure, a system and method isdisclosed for conducting inference with the assistance of a computersystem that maintains additional data and meta-data in order to create,display, label, and modify tree or graph-like structures relating to theinference. These structures are used to update, calculate, and displayscores or ratings pertaining to statements or arguments used in theinference or about which the inference is regarding. In one embodiment,the computer system may permit one or more users to edit a commoninference graph, to challenge arguments in it, to respond to challenges,to assume challenges are mistaken or statements or arguments are trueand monitor the consequences this assumption has for other inferences,and to view updated ratings of nodes in the tree. A rating maintainedfor nodes of the graph may be computed to indicate whether the statementmay be established using only arguments and assumptions that are notvalidly challenged, that is not challenged by arguments or statementswhich themselves fulfill criteria for being established.

In another embodiment, another score or scores may also be computed thatindicates which nodes are implied using only arguments and assertionsthat are not challenged by a similarly unchallenged argument and forwhich there is not a negation node that is similarly implied, except forthis score there are a set of named challenges and/or named arguments,and/or statements that may be used even though they are challenged. Thisembodiment may allow users to see what the results would be undervarious hypotheses about disputed points. Users may be motivated to usethe system to try to prove and disprove various statements, and thesystem may transparently indicate whether an argument tree for astatement has been constructed that has not been cogently refuted, andthus that everybody may agree they do not know how to cogently refute.In cases where a logical argument for or against some proposition cannotbe established to everybody's satisfaction, the system may provide thecapability to cogently identify and refine and transparently display theunderlying points on which users cannot agree and display as well howalternative outcomes of these underlying disputes may affect thevalidity and demonstrability of said proposition and other statementsentered into the system.

For example, the disclosure may allow users to recognize and prevent inthe future logical holes, for example, that may commonly go unspotted atlower levels in numerous real world inference trees, causing immensereal world inefficiency and harm that our disclosure will allow.

In one embodiment, the system may provide for other scores for nodes tobe computed including estimates of a likelihood associated with a node,computed using only propagation along arguments and statements notchallenged, or computed using scores depending on an interaction ofchallenged and unchallenged nodes in a framework where challenges may belooked at as proposing an alternative likelihood for the statement. Thisembodiment may also be used as a framework for negotiating likelihoodestimates the users may agree on, and may be used to compute likelihoodswith certain challenges axiomatized (disregarded for the calculation)just as in the above embodiments.

The system may maintain a file or database representing the currentstate of inference, including data indicating the current rating ofproposed inferences, and data about user entries.

The system may offer users a menu of options, including entering text ordata into fields or uploads, where a label such as “argument” or“result” or “challenge” may be attached to particular fields on adisplay. In one embodiment, drop down menus may be provided where someof the alternatives are greyed out depending on the context so that theymay not be selectable by the user, and other alternatives are offered inblack. When one of these is selected by the user, the system may displaya window with fields into which text and/or data may be entered or filesuploaded pertaining to particular objects. The embodiment may supportentries in one or the other categories that may be labeled on a display:arguments, results, assumptions, responses, tests, suggested edits,citations, choice nodes, negations, and/or challenges. As users add andchange entries, the system may keep a structured record of the entries,and display same. The editing permissions the users are given mayconstrain them to constructions consistent with mapping into graphicalstructures that the system maintains and may display a depiction of.This structured record may have a graphical form, in which each argumentmay be associated with a node from which there is a directed edge toanother node with which a result is associated, and to which there maybe directed edges of a first type from zero or more nodes with whichassumptions are associated. A second type of inward-directed edge tonodes corresponding to an argument may come from nodes corresponding tochallenges with which may be associated challenge arguments. In anillustrative embodiment, users may also create nodes corresponding tothe negation of the statement corresponding to another node, and thesystem may connect these with bi-directed edges. In other embodiments,the system may configure n-choice nodes, which include n nodes connectedwith bi-directed edges and treated as a unit for rating purposes, withan intent that one of the n alternative nodes is true (so thatestablishing the truth of one establishes and necessitates establishingthe falsehood of the others). The users may be offered a graphicaldisplay allowing them to navigate through the structured record. Theusers may be prompted to enter statements, and arguments and choicesaccording to a logic implemented into the system. As users update,create, and modify entries, the system may propagate one or more scoresor ratings to other nodes on the graph and their associated statementsor arguments. In another embodiment, the system may assign a rating thattakes values “tentatively established” (TE) or “not tentativelyestablished” (NOT-TE) or “tentatively established subject to condition”(TE C) by an algorithm implemented by a processing device of the system.The algorithm may determine that a node is tentatively established ifthere is an argument for it that is not validly challenged and that hasall its assumptions tentatively established, and there is no negation oralternative node for it having the same properties, where a challengemay be said to be “valid” if its challenge node itself fulfills thecriteria for tentative establishment. The rating of a node is its“status”.

The different types of nodes and edges may correspond to differentargument types, and the rating algorithm may treat them differently,thus allowing users to construct different representations and viewdifferent ratings. Suggested Edit nodes may be used to suggest changesto other nodes or their associated data or edges, and may be taken tonot affect the status of the target node. Test nodes may be used in aprobabilistic rating, so that the Test edge may not affect the status ofits target, but may affect another rating dubbed “Belief”. Citationnodes may be considered a sub-type of argument nodes, but may beintended to be used to link to peer reviewed publications, for example.Their outgoing edge may be treated as an argument edge, or as otherwisespecified by the user to be a challenge, assumption, etc. Citation nodesmay have a particularly important role in another alternative ratingthat may be supported called Citations rating, which rates a nodeTentatively Established if it is supported by a demonstration groundedentirely on citations, and not validly challenged at any critical pointin the demonstration, where again a challenge is valid if it isTentatively Established by the same standard.

In one embodiment, the system may provide a display on which the usersmay be able to view the ratings of the nodes as they modify the argumentgraph and may thus direct their efforts to the critical parts of thegraph. Users may be able to transparently read out whether conclusionshave been “tentatively established” (TE) or not according to the entriesup to the present time (and may be able to using a variety of updatemethods). Users may also be able to respond to certain challenges byhypothesizing or stipulating they are neglected, and compute thetentative-establishment status under the counter-factual situation thatthe challenge was withdrawn or refuted, and/or that a node and itscorresponding statement has been established and the system thenassigning to pertinent nodes a status of tentative-establishment subjectto condition (TE C). This capability of the system may, for example, letpolicy makers viewing a complex argument constructed by opposing teams,see what the key underlying points the opposing teams are actuallydisagreeing on (rather than, for example, seeing only two differentconclusions) and how the different results would turn out underdifferent hypotheses regarding these underlying sub-issues and what thearguments for and against the sub-issues are.

In accordance with one embodiment, an apparatus may include a processingdevice configured to: receive first information indicating statementsand arguments, and which statement of the statements is an intendedresult of an argument; receive second information indicating challengesto the statements or the arguments; establish a correspondence betweenthe statements and the arguments to nodes in a graph; and rate whether afirst node of the nodes is established by an argument graph using onlyarguments that are not validly challenged.

In accordance with one embodiment, an apparatus may include a processingdevice configured to: receive first information indicating nodes in agraph and directed edges, said edges indicating which first node of thenodes provides an argument for another node of the nodes, which secondnode of the nodes provides an assumption for another second node of thenodes, and which third node of the nodes provides a challenge to anotherthird node of the nodes; receive second information indicating text ordata associated with the nodes; rate a first edge of the edges asestablished when the first edge originates at an established node of thenodes; and rate a node of the nodes as established (i) in a case wheneach incoming assumption edge thereof is established and no incomingchallenge edge is established, and (ii) in a case when at least oneincoming argument edge exists, at least one of the at least one incomingargument edge exists is established.

In accordance with one embodiment, an apparatus may include a processingdevice configured to: receive first information indicating nodes anddirected edges of a graph, said edges indicating which first node of thenodes provides an argument for another node of the nodes, which secondnode of the nodes provides an assumption for another second node of thenodes and which third node of the nodes provides a challenge to anotherthird node of the nodes; receive second information indicating text ordata associated with the nodes; and determine a belief for eachrespective node estimating (i) a likelihood that each incomingassumption edge thereof is from a true node, (ii) when the node has atleast one argument edge, at least one of the at least one argument edgeis from a true node, and (iii) no incoming challenge edge thereof isfrom a true node.

In accordance with one embodiment, a method may include receiving, by aprocessing device, first information indicating statements andarguments, which statement of the statements is an intended result of anargument; receiving, by the processing device, second informationindicating challenges to the statements or the arguments; establishing,by the processing device, a correspondence between the statements andthe arguments to nodes in a graph; and rating, by the processing device,whether a first node of the nodes is established by an argument graphusing only arguments that are not validly challenged.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 depicts an illustrative embodiment of a system for conducting anddisplaying inference, showing a client implementation and constitutiveelements in accordance with the present disclosure.

FIGS. 2A and 2B shows a flowchart for the operation of the system.

FIG. 3 shows a screenshot of an embodiment displaying a graph beingedited.

FIG. 4 shows a screenshot of the embodiment of FIG. 3 after furtherediting.

FIG. 5 shows a screenshot of the embodiment of FIG. 3 after furtherediting.

FIGS. 6(a) and 6(b) show flowcharts for a rating algorithm for “status”.

FIGS. 7(a) and 7(b) show flowcharts for an alternative node ratingalgorithm “Citations Rating”.

FIG. 8 shows a screenshot of an embodiment displaying a graph ratedaccording to FIGS. 6(a) and 6(b).

FIG. 9 shows a screenshot of an embodiment displaying the same graph asFIG. 8 rated according to FIGS. 7(a) and 7(B).

FIGS. 10(a) and 10(b) show flow charts for rating with axiomatization.

FIG. 11 shows a screenshot of an embodiment displaying the graph of FIG.8 after a node has been axiomatized and the graph rated according toFIGS. 10(a) and 10(b).

FIGS. 12(a), 12(b) and 12(c) show flow charts for rating with n-waynodes.

FIG. 13 shows a screenshot of an embodiment displaying an example ratingwith n-way nodes.

FIGS. 14(a) and 14(b) depict two other embodiments that support userentry of update methods.

FIGS. 15(a), 15(b) and 15(c) show three illustrative edits of graphsprepared using an embodiment supporting statement-statement edges andsupporting challenges of edges.

FIG. 16 shows a screenshot of an embodiment displaying the rating of thegraph of FIG. 13 after an additional challenge is added.

FIG. 17 shows a somewhat mature graph after a number of edits andchallenges for a debate concerning climate change, illustrating thatgraphs may become somewhat complex for some users.

FIGS. 18(a), 18(b), 18(c) and 18(d) illustrate simpler subgraphdepictions that may be shown to users.

FIG. 19(a) shows the hypertext display of FIG. 18(d) with the mousepointer hovering over the first line, and the system then displaying thefull version of the content associated with the node on a pop-up.

FIG. 19(b) shows an example in which the hypertext display of FIG. 18(d)is being right-clicked on the first line. The display then pops a menuthat the user may select from to take actions pertaining to the node.

FIG. 20 shows a screenshot of an embodiment displaying the rating of thegraph of FIG. 16 after a node is axiomatized.

FIGS. 21A-21F shows a flow chart for the evaluation or Update ofBeliefs.

FIGS. 22(a) and 22(b) are screenshots showing a graph illustrating howMonte Carlo examples are generated and Beliefs are updated.

FIG. 23 is a screenshot showing a graph illustrating how the Monte Carloexamples are generated and Beliefs are updated.

FIGS. 24(a) and 24(b) are flow charts for updating Citations Rating withaxiomatization.

FIG. 25 is a screenshot showing the graph of FIG. 11 with Citationsrating turned on.

FIG. 26 shows a depiction of the View window of node n19 in FIG. 20illustrating the comment statements and their rating.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

FIG. 1 depicts an illustrative embodiment of a system for conducting anddisplaying inference, showing a client software implementation andconstitutive elements in accordance with the present disclosure. FIG. 1depicts 2 users, but it is understood that the disclosed system supportsan arbitrary number of users. The communication network 1.5 in the imageis the internet, but other means could be used to transfer data. Alsoshown is a data cache 1.2, where the system may store data pertaining touser entries and the graphical representation thereof 1.6. The inferencesupport system 1.0 is shown as running on a computer 1.7, in this caseUser 1's, which may also represent a server, and storing data in thedata cache. In the illustration the users are using browsers 1.3 and 1.4(possibly with plug-ins) to access the Inference system running on acomputer or to view graphical displays it maintains. Alternatively theymay use specific client software loaded onto their machines for thepurpose of accessing the inference system, or they may run the Inferencesystem locally, or the inference system may itself run on a browser oras a plug-in on a browser.

In another embodiment, certain aspects of the system may be run on thelocal machines, such as User2's computer 1.8 and certain aspects of thesystem are run on central server, which may be represented here byUser1's computer 1.7. For example, as the user locally edits the graph,the system may locally (1.8, 1.4) run a graph arranging algorithm todisplay the graph in a pleasing and informative layout, while it mayperform the calculations of rating updates and belief value scoreupdates for the nodes on the graph at the central computer 1.7 and sendthe updated information to the local computer 1.8 for display. Oralternatively, the ratings' updates may be computed locally as well. Anillustrative embodiment runs locally on a user's browser, where the usermay edit, view, and interact with local copies of the graph, and may runas well at a server 1.7. Some functions may be performed at the localmachine, and some at the server. The system may maintain a copy of thegraph and argument being edited, which is a shared copy. As a local copyis edited, it may differ from the shared copy which may be at a centraldata cache represented by 1.2 or on a central server, represented hereby 1.7. When the user saves the edited graph, it may be saved back tothe central server or central data cache and replace the shared copythere, becoming available to other users to view, edit, or interactwith. Alternatively the user may save-as the local graph, and have it besaved on the central data cache as a common graph available to othersfor download, viewing, or editing, without necessarily over-writing theexisting graph. 1.9 shows a tablet or smart phone or other mobilecomputing device which may also be capable of interacting with thesystem much as 1.8 is.

It is to be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that thesystem 1.0, which is described below as performing data processingoperations, may be software, hardware, such as a circuit or circuitry,or any combination of hardware, including circuitry, and software. Inaddition, the system 1.0 may suitably contain a memory storage area,such as RAM, for storage of data and instructions for performingprocessing operations in accordance with the present disclosure.Alternatively, instructions for performing processing operations can bestored in hardware in one or more of databases in the system 1.0.

It will be further understood by those of ordinary skill in the art thatthe system 1.0 may be implemented as an apparatus including a processorand memory, or may actually comprise multiple processors and memoriesthat may or may not be stored within the same physical housing. Forexample, some of the instructions and data may be stored on removableCD-ROM and others within a read-only computer chip. Some or all of theinstructions and data may be stored in a location physically remotefrom, yet still accessible by, the processor. Similarly, the processormay actually comprise a collection of processors which may or may notoperate in parallel.

FIG. 2(a) shows a flowchart for the operation of the system. The systemmay accept a user entry at block 2.1. Then the system updates agraphical representation according to the structure appropriate to theuser entry that is received at block 2.2. Users may enter data or textinto one or more provided fields associated with a node and the systemmay store this data and associate it to the node and may display it tousers or provide users means to edit it. Users may indicate to thesystem how a node is to be connected to other nodes, for example whetherit is to be an argument for a particular declaration at a particularnode. User entries may be constrained by the editor to indicate how theedit creates or changes the graphical structure in a modality the systemis programmed to understand and support. For example, the system mayrefuse to accept the creation or edit of an argument node, unless someexisting statement node has been designated as its result or some stringof text has been entered into its result field, and may create a newresult node having the entry as statement if one does not already existthat has the entry as its statement. The system at block 2.2 may alsocompute and update one or more ratings or scores for the nodes and/oredges of the graph, and update the representation accordingly. Thesystem may update metadata associated with the nodes and edges of thegraph, such as who has permission to edit the node at block 2.3, or suchas maintaining for the nodes a history of when the node last changedfrom TE status or how long it has been TE status. Such data may beuseful to users for estimating the stability of edited argument graphs.

Then the system may offer appropriate users appropriate options, atblock 2.4. For example, all users may be able to view all nodes, andsome users may be able to edit or challenge nodes, which will result inthe system looping to block 2.1 Users may be able to edit nodes theyhave created corresponding to arguments or statements they areauthoring, and to challenge nodes of others or suggest edits of them byattaching a suggested edit node to them, but may be prevented fromediting the nodes authored by others in some embodiments.

The above discussion may maintain a single common graph that multipleusers may edit in real time, seeing updates as they are made bythemselves or other users. Alternative methods of handling concurrencymay be used. FIG. 2(B) details an illustrative embodiment whichmaintains multiple versions of a common graph. There may be a currentversion of the common graph that may be viewed by multiple users. Thecurrent common version may be saved at a server, for example, the server1.7. When users access the system and view the graph from their computer1.8 or other device (such as a smart phone 1.9) a copy may be made anddisplayed on their local machine 1.8, or 1.9 for example displayed ontheir browser 1.4. When a user enters a command or some text or data atblock 2.12, the system may ask at block 2.5 whether the user request wasto save his local version to the common version, changing the commonversion if the local user has made edits to the graph locally. If yes,then at block 2.6 the system may update the common version, changing it,and may refresh the copy of the common graph on the computers or otherdevices of other users currently editing or viewing it. If they havemade local changes, it may offer to save a local copy of their changesbefore refreshing. In alternative embodiments the system may alert usersthat the graph has changed on disk, so that they may refresh, ratherthan refreshing for them. Or it may refresh, and alert that it hasrefreshed, but an edit window that the user may have open editing anode, may not be refreshed. When the local user hits the “save changes”button on said edit window, the system may rewrite the local graph(after it had been refreshed to be current with the common graph) bymaking the changes to this node, or adding the particular node or edgesthat had been entered into said edit window. So the changes may in thisway be made after the changes of another user have been incorporated. Ifthe user then saves his local graph to the common graph, the commongraph will also contain both edits.

The system may refuse to update the common graph if local users try tosave with a graph that does not reflect the most recently saved changeon the common graph by another user. Other means of handling concurrencyand avoiding collisions may be familiar to those versed in the art.

Note that the system may in an alternative embodiment allow users tomake changes on their local graph, and deny them from saving thosechanges to the common graph by checking before saving whether the userhas permission to save the changes before saving them at block 2.6.

If the user entry is not Save to Common, then at block 2.7 the systemdetermines if it is Save to Local? at block 2.8. The system may save alocal copy of the local version of the graph and associated data, forthe users convenience, for example at block 1.8.

If the user entry is neither save to local nor common, at block 2.9, thesystem next locally updates the graphical representation, and associatedstored data, performing changes the user entry may have specified, andperforms node rating updates for the local graph. (These ratings updatesmay or may not be physically performed on the local machine 1.8, but maybe performed in some embodiments on a server 1.7 by sending the localgraph information and receiving back the computed updates. This may bedone, for example, if some rating update scheme was secret to avoidcopying of the software by users.)

The metadata may also be locally updated at block 2.10. Next, onceupdates have been done, local users are offered appropriate options. Theoptions may depend on the user-for example users may have permission toview or edit some graphs but not others, or to edit some nodes but notothers. Or in some embodiments, users may offer buttons or permissionsto take actions on the local copy of the graph, but may be warned thatcertain actions cannot be saved to the common graph.

When a user makes some entry based on the options offered at block 2.11,the system responds again at block 2.12.

In an illustrative embodiment, the system may display to users via abrowser on their computer a searchable list of existing graphs and/orallow them to start a new graph. The system offers a button users mayclick to start a new graph and also supports users right-clicking withtheir mouse on virtual canvas or whitespace on the browser window(surrounding a drawn graph, or in whitespace provided for one to bedrawn). Upon the right-click the system presents a dropdown menuincluding as an option “New Graph”. Dropdown1, the Layout dropdown, isshown in the upper right of screen shot of FIG. 3, where the system hasdrawn it in response to a user right-clicking on the white space.

In response to said user input, the system then displays the selectedgraph or (if New Graph was selected, whitespace in which a new graph maybe created), and displays a control panel to users, as well as dropdowns to users who right-click on the white space (Dropdown1) or on thenodes of the displayed graph (Dropdown2) or on the edges of thedisplayed graph (Dropdown3). FIG. 3 shows a screen shot with the controlpanel on the left and showing Dropdown1, the Layout dropdown, a dropdownmenu created by a right-click on the white space. The saved graph“PFigure3to5” has previously been selected by the user and displayed bythe system. It includes nodes n0, n1, and n2 and the edges between themas displayed. On the control panel, Controlpanel1, labelled SimplicioControl Panel, there are buttons for Load/save graph, Add statement,Extra edge, Settings, and Legend. When one of these buttons is selected,it displays to the user a further set of options. For example, asillustrated in FIG. 3, the Add statement button has been selected,causing the system to display a field into which the user may enter orpaste a Head: (or running head) for the node, a field into which theuser may enter (or paste) a Declaration for the node, a button for “Edgeto” that drops down into a list of target options, which may be the listof nodes already on the graph being edited (or may allow selection ofnodes on other graphs). It also contains a button for “As:” that whenselected may drop down into a menu displaying a set of node and/or edgetypes. FIG. 4 is a screenshot with the As: button selected showing theChoose Relation Type dropdown menu (Dropdown4) that includes Challenge,Negation, Argument, Assumption, Citation, Suggested Edit, and Test.(Shown open in FIG. 4). The panel with the “Add statement” buttonselected may also contain one or more fields and/or selectors in whichthe user may enter numbers representing estimates of beliefs orlikelihood values, for the node and if it is a test node for its target.In FIG. 3 a Proposed Belief is shown with a selector that allows theuser to enter or select numbers between 0 and 1. The panel also maycontain a button “Add”.

Also pictured in FIG. 3 is a rectangle cloud1 “The declaration of theroot node may state . . . ” that the system draws in response to themouse hovering over a node, in this case n0, in which the system depictsthe Declaration that has been entered into said node n0, its ID, rating(NOT TE in this case), PB, and a Belief, which is a numerical estimatethe system has computed based on arguments and challenges of thelikelihood declaration has been established.

Also shown in FIG. 3 is the Layout dropdown menu the system displayed inresponse to a user right-click on the white space (Dropdown1). Itcontains selectable items for Layout, which if selected may offer afurther drop down menu Dropdown11 of alternative graph arrangingalgorithms that may be used to view the graph redrawn in various ways,Save, which may save changes that have been made to the local version ofa shared graph to the common version, Save As, which if selected mayallow the user to select a new name to save the edited graph under, thusnot overwriting the common graph but potentially starting a new commongraph if the user selects to share it or save it in public format,Reload, which may recopy the common graph on the local copy, wiping outlocal edits that have not been saved, New Graph, which may present newwhite space to begin construction of a new graph, for example bysubsequently using the control panel to add a root node to start saidnew graph, Load Graph List, which may show the user a list of existinggraphs and/or a search bar to allow her to select an existing graph toview or edit, Graph Belief, which may allow the user to toggle on or offthe computation of belief values for the nodes, and Citations Ratings,which may toggle on or off using the “citations ratings” scheme that maybe described below rather than the standard status (TentativeEstablishment) Rating. If Citations Ratings are turned on, the systemmay evaluate the nodes of the graph according to the citation ratingsprocedure and draw the graph accordingly.

FIG. 4 is a screen shot of the system of FIG. 3 after the user haswritten “a new challenge node” in the Head field and “Why the argumentof n2 is faulty . . . ” in the Declaration field. She has selected n2 astarget in the “Edge To:” dropdown, and is in the process of selecting“Challenge” as the edge type in the “As:” field with the Choose RelationType dropdown menu. This dropdown menu showing edge types is shown stillopen.

When the Add button is selected, the system may display on the graph thenew node, which may be the only node if the graph had been previouslynew, or which the system may have attached to the graph being editedwith the new node attached with an edge of the selected type to theselected target. (This may in this embodiment have updated the datarepresenting the local version of the graph in local memory.) The newnode may be displayed as an icon with the running head entered displayedon it. The color of the edge may depend on its type.

FIG. 5 shows a screenshot after the Add button is pushed in thesituation of FIG. 4. The new node n3 has been added challenging thetarget n2. The edge running from n3 to n2 is a Challenge edge as shownby its red color (as is the edge running from n2 to n1). The node n2 hasthe declaration and the running head as entered. In response to themouse pointer hovering over the node n3, (done in creating FIG. 5, butthe mouse pointer itself is not shown because the screenshot doesn'tcapture it), the system displays its declaration “Why the argument of n2is faulty . . . ”, its ID, its rating, its PB, and its Belief, which isa numerical rating calculated as described below by the system for eachnode when the likelihood calculations are turned on.

Alternatively, the user could have used the rightclick dropdown menushown open in FIG. 4 to create a new node. FIG. 4 shows open the Viewdropdown menu Dropdown2 produced by a right click on node n2. The usercould use it to create a new node by selecting AddInNode, in which casethe system would present a dropdown menu Dropdown5 (not shown) to selectthe edge type to connect the new node by, and if he selected challengethe system would pop a window with fields like those in the panel intowhich he could enter the running head and declaration and ProposedBelief for the new node. If instead he selected AddOutNode, the systemwould attach the new node to the graph by an edge pointing the oppositedirection, so that the node he had rightclicked on (n2 in FIG. 4) wouldbe challenging the new node not challenged by it. Alternatively the usercould choose View, in which case the system may pop a window showing thecontents of the node (running head, declaration, rating, proposedbelief, belief, and in some embodiments other stored data or meta-datasuch as owner, creator, date of creation, etc.) as a web page, withimages rendered and videos playable and hyper-links active, if usershave entered such into the node. The option Extra edge to is showngrey-ed out (and thus the system would not register if the user tries toselect it) because no node has been selected. If a node had previouslybeen selected (by clicking on it with the mouse) the Extra edge tooption may be displayed without being greyed out, and if selected mayoffer the user an additional drop down to choose the type of edge, whichit would then insert into the graph structure between said node and saidpreviously selected node.

Alternatively the user could choose the option Edit from the dropdownmenu Dropdown2 illustrated in FIG. 4, in which case the system wouldrespond by popping an edit window for the selected node, n2 in the caseof FIG. 4, and allow the user to edit the running head and declarationand other fields associated with said node.

It may be noted that the provision supporting users to add extra edgesbetween existing nodes, or to add outgoing nodes to an existing node,may allow them to use a node simultaneously as an argument for one otherstatement and a challenge to another, and potentially an assumption of athird and fourth etc. The embodiment may allow a flexible structure toconstruct an argument or disputation tree, but maintains data describingthe relationship of the various statements and arguments entered by theusers, and may as each additional change or edit is made, update theratings of the nodes in the system to reflect the logical status of thestatements according to the challenge and argument and assumption edgesadded to the graph.

Other options include Flag Node, which would flag the node as Frivolousfor possible removal by a moderator or after a vote, Remove, which wouldremove the node from the graph, Axiomatize, which would set anaxiomatization flag for the node, axiomatizing the node as will bedescribed below, Collapse Branch, which would change the display bycollapsing all the ancestors of the node, and Super Node which woulddrop a menu of options Dropdown6 for creating a Super Node structurethat may be useful for displaying alternative views of the graph andwhich may be described later.

At this point in FIG. 5, the graph as shown may be a local copy on theuser's computer, displayed in his browser. Another centrally storedgraph 1.6 may not have been updated. The centrally stored graph (and thedata it represents) may still look as it was when it was downloaded anddisplayed in FIG. 3. If the user saves the graph, for example using theload/save graph button in the dashboard, Controlpanel1, or by rightclicking on the whitespace and selecting Save or SaveAs from the Layoutdropdown dropdown1 as shown in FIG. 3, a centrally stored inferencegraph 1.6 may be updated so that other users may be able to view andfurther edit the graph. The user may also have an option to save a localcopy without updating the central shared graph.

It may be that the dropdown menu items may not be the same for allusers, and that some options may be grayed out or not shown if the userdoes not have permission to select the action or the option is otherwiseinappropriate. For example in FIG. 3 the “Extra edge to” option isgrayed out and can't be selected. If another node had been previouslyselected by clicking on the display, then the Extra edge to option wouldnot be grayed out, but instead if selected would show a drop down menuto select the edge type, and when that was selected would add an extraedge of the selected type from n2 to the selected node.

Other issues that would cause graying out of nodes may include lack ofpermission. The nodes may be associated with users who have privilegesto edit them, typically the node's creator or the graph's creator orusers selected by them, and other users who rightclick on a node they donot have permission to edit may see the Edit option missing or grayedout. The system may store data (metadata) for every node, edge, andgraph, indicating which users should be permitted and supported toselect which options, including viewing, editing, removing, and/orflagging, each such object.

The system may also impose some constraints on the graphs that it allowsusers to build. The system may not allow users to construct an edge thatcauses the graph to have a cycle. The system may check which edges ifadded would create a loop that can be followed around in the directionof the edges, and if an edge would create such a loop may refuse to addit or may gray out the alternative so the user is not permitted toselect it.

Likewise the system may show a drop down menu when an edge isright-clicked, Dropdown3, which may allow the user to select options ofmove, remove, or challenge the edge. Challenging the edge may insert asmall “virtual argument”-type node in the middle of the edge, and maypop a window to allow the user to edit a challenge node, and may thenattach the challenge node by a challenge edge pointing from thechallenge node to the virtual argument node in the middle of thechallenged edge. The virtual argument node may then be edited by usersto become a normal argument node, if any user chooses to do so to answerthe challenge. For example, if a user rightclicks on the virtualargument node, the system may show him the drop down menu and allow himto edit the node.

The virtual argument node may be treated as an ordinary argument node bythe rating system, and hence since it is challenged may be rated NOT-TEinitially. Its distinguishing feature is that its Declaration andRunning Head are empty, having not yet been edited by a user. Itsimplication is that its parent (the node the challenged edge originatesat) in fact implies its result (the node that was the target of thechallenged edge), which now forms two edges, one from the parent to saidvirtual argument node, and an outgoing one from the virtual argumentnode to the target node. See FIG. 15 discussed in detail herein.

Thus an embodiment may offer support for users to select actions thatbuild and edit a graph comprised of nodes and directed edges. The nodesand edges may consist of different types, including challenge, argument,assumption, test, suggested edit, citation, and in some embodimentsother types such as virtual argument, forced or n-way choice, andnegation. The nodes may have associated fields where users can enterdata, which may include fields with titles such as: running head,declaration, proposed belief, Likelihood Estimate, Likelihood giventarget true, Likelihood given target false. The system may save thisdata associated with each node and use it to maintain a graphicalrepresentation and display it to users upon various commands asexemplified above.

As users enter data, the system updates a graphical representation thatmay be called the Inference Tree or Inference Graph, assigning a ratingor score to nodes. A rating, which sometimes is called the status of thenode, may be maintained. It is particularly easy to describe thecomputation of status in embodiments or in graphs where the features ofaxiomatization and negation nodes or forced-choice nodes are notincluded. Additionally in the below discussion, Test edges and SuggestedEdit edges are ignored for the purpose of computing the status rating ofthe nodes. The Test and suggested edit nodes themselves are rated, butthey do not influence the rating of the nodes their Test and SuggestedEdit edges point at. Test edges are influential in some embodiments ofratings and alternative statuses that may be used, for example in theillustrative embodiment the test edges influence the update of Belief asmay be described below. But in the embodiments described, the Test edgesdo not affect the status of Tentative Establishment.

In graphs where no nodes have been axiomatized, or in embodimentswithout axiomatization, the status rating may take one of two valuesthat we call Tentatively Established or TE and Not TentativelyEstablished or NOT-TE.

In such embodiments, the rating process may start at the leaves, nodesin the graph with no incoming edges (except they may have incoming Testor Suggested Edit edges, which may be ignored for the purpose of ratingcalculations.)

In FIG. 3, the only leaf is node n2. The system rates leaves asTentatively Established and draws their nodes with dark thick (bold)edges. It also considers outgoing edges from TE nodes to be TE and drawsthem thick and bold, like the challenge edge from n2 to n1 in FIG. 3.

After the leaves are rated, the rating process iteratively proceeds toanother node in the graph having the property that all its incomingedges (not counting Test, or Suggested Edit, edges) are from nodes thathave already been rated. Those nodes that have one or more edgespointing to a given node are referred to as said given node's parentnodes. As each node is rated, until every node is rated, there mustalways be an unrated node all of whose parents have been rated, becausethe graph has no loops. (One such node may be generated by picking anyunrated node and following back along edges to unrated parents untilreaching an unrated node with no unrated parent.) In the example of FIG.3, after the leaf n2 is rated, the node n1 may be rated, and then thenode n0 may be rated.

When a node is rated, or reference is made to updating its rating, it israted as TE if all of its incoming challenge edges are NOT-TE (thin),all of its incoming assumption edges are TE (bold), and if it has anyincoming argument edges at least one of them must be TE (bold).Otherwise, the node is rated as NOT-TE. If it is TE, the system may drawthe node with a bold boundary and its outgoing edges in bold, and if itis NOT-TE the system may draw the node thin and its outgoing edges thin.

In FIG. 3 it is noted that n2 is TE because it is a leaf (EDepth 0), n1is NOT-TE because it has an incoming bold challenge, and n0 is NOT-TEbecause its only incoming argument is NOT-TE (thin). In FIG. 5 it isnoted that n3 is TE because it is a leaf, n2 is NOT-TE because it has anincoming bold Challenge, n1 is TE because its only incoming Challenge isthin and it has no arguments or assumptions, and n0 is TE because itsincoming argument edge is bold.

Note that in FIG. 4, the Declaration of the Root has not beenTentatively Established, because somebody has raised a reason why itsonly argument is wrong. However, in FIG. 5, a user has explained why theargument against said argument is wrong in turn. Thus based on FIG. 5,the Root is Tentatively Established. There is an argument explaining whyit is true, and every argument explaining what's wrong with saidargument, has itself been validly rebutted.

The Rating process is further spelled out with reference to FIGS. 6(a)and 6(b). The EDepth of a node is defined to be the length of thelongest path (number of edges) in the graph that runs along thedirection of the edges and ends at said node (not including paths thatgo over Test edges or Suggested Edit edges, or visit more than 2 of aset of n-choice nodes or visit a negation twice in embodiments thatinclude them). So the Edepth of node n3 is 0, of node n2 is 1, of noden1 is 2, and of node n0 is 3, in FIG. 5.

Referring to FIG. 6(a), at block 6.1 the nodes in the graph are sortedby EDepth. Then the nodes are processed in order of increasing Edepth,updating each as it is processed according to FIG. 6(b), at block 6.2

In block 6.3, the processing device determines if the node is Edepth 0,a leaf. If yes, the processing device rates the node TE at block 6.4. Ifnot, the processing device determines if it has a challenge edgeincoming from a TE node at block 6.5. If so, at block 6.6, it is NOT-TE.

If not at block 6.7, the processing device determines if it has anassumption edge incoming from a NOT-TE node. If so, it is NOT TE, atblock 6.8. If not, at block 6.9, the processing device determines if ithas any arguments at all. If not, at block 6.10, the processing devicerates it TE. If so, the processing device determines if any of thearguments are TE at block 6.11. If yes, at block 6.12, the node is ratedTE. If not, at block 6.13, the node is rated NOT-TE.

The rationale for configuring the system to update ratings like this isthat the rating shows (graphically) whether a node has an argument thatis not validly challenged and has all of its assumptions also similarlyestablished. A node is TE if it has no TE challenge and all of itsAssumptions are TE and if it has any argument, at least one argument isTE. If it has no arguments at all, but has not been validly challenged,the node is considered an argument for itself, and is rated TE. If ithas arguments that are NOT-TE, then a TE argument is demanded becauseusers have felt it necessary to supply arguments, and other users hadreasons why the arguments supplied were not valid. (If users feel thenode actually provides its own argument, they may add a node to soargue.)

In FIG. 3, note that node n2 is outlined in bold, and the challenge edgefrom n2 to n1 is bold, but nodes n1 and n0 are not bold, and the edgefrom n1 to n2 is not bold. The bold indicates the status of the node.The embodiment outlines in bold the nodes that are TE, and in thinboundary the nodes that are NOT-TE. Node n2 is bold, and TE, nodes n1and n0 and NOT-TE. The system renders in bold and considers TE edgesoutgoing from TE nodes. This is according to FIG. 6. n2 is rated firstbecause it is Edepth 0, and it is TE because it is Edepth 0. N1 is ratednext because it is EDepth 1 (since the longest path to it follows theedge from n2 to n1), and it is NOT-TE because it has a TE challenge, cf.blocks 6.5 and 6.6. NO is rated last, because it is EDepth 2, and it isNOT-TE because its only argument is NOT-TE, cf. block 6.13. Then in FIG.5, the Challenge n3 is TE, block 6.4, so n2 is NOT-TE, block 6.6, and n1is TE, block 6.10, since it has no TE challenge and has no arguments orassumptions, and n0 is TE because it now has a TE argument 6.12.

The rating process in this embodiment is straightforward graphically.Start at leaves, and iteratively update a node all of whose parents havealready been updated. Leaves are bold (TE) and their outgoing edges arebold. An incoming bold red edge makes a node NOT-TE. If there are none,then an incoming thin blue assumption edge makes a node NOT-TE. If thereare none then if there are incoming black argument or citation edges, atleast one of them must be bold or the node is NOT-TE, but if there areno incoming arguments, or there is an incoming bold argument, the nodeis TE.

Alternative rating systems may be supported. For example, the “CitationsRatings” option in the illustrative embodiment may be discussed withreference to FIGS. 7(a) and 7(b). Citations Ratings differs in that itdemands every node actually have a TE argument to be TE, or else that itbe a citation node. Citation nodes are a type of node. Users may beinstructed or agree that Citation nodes should contain and/or representa link and/or a citation to a paper in the peer-reviewed literature.FIG. 7(a) is identical to FIG. 6(a), and the system goes through thenodes in the same order updating, but updating using FIG. 7(b) (not FIG.6(b)). In FIG. 7(b), the system first asks if the node has a TEChallenge, at block 7.1. If yes, it is NOT TE, at block 7.2. If NO, atblock 7.3 the system determines if it has a NOT-TE assumption. If so,then it is NOT TE at block 7.4. If not, then the system asks if it has aTE argument at block 7.5. This may include an incoming TE argument edgefrom an argument node or an incoming TE argument or citation edge from acitation node, as the system may treat citations a special type ofargument node. If yes, it is TE, at block 7.6. If not, then the systemdetermines at block 7.7 if the node is a citation node. If it is, atblock 7.8, it is rated TE. Otherwise, it is NOT TE. At block 7.9

This alternative rating scheme demands a node actually have an incomingArgument (or citation) edge from a TE node, or itself be a TE citation,before it is considered TE.

Note that when a citation node is added by an edge to an existing node,the edge may be considered to be an argument edge. When the systemdetermines whether a node has an argument in FIG. 6 or 7, argumentsinclude citation nodes that are the node's parent.

A motivation for the design of citations rating may be that, assumingusers use citation nodes to link to the peer-reviewed literature, theembodiment of FIGS. 7(a) and 7(b) only considers nodes TE if they aregrounded in the peer-reviewed literature. Either they themselvesrepresent a peer reviewed article, or they are based on a chain ofargumentation grounded on the peer reviewed literature and not validlychallenged by any argument grounded on the peer reviewed literature.Alternatively, users may adopt another definition of citation nodes (andpossibly rename them) so in this way it is possible for users torestrict TE status to arguments grounded in alternative base criteria oftheir agreement.

FIG. 8 shows a possible extension of the graph of FIG. 5 after usershave entered additional nodes n4, n5, n6, n7, n8, n9, n10, n11, n12, n13and n14. The Simplicio Control Panel Controlpanel1 shown on the left isopen, and the Legend button has been selected, opening the legenddescribing the color code of edges and nodes.

Note that after n11 was added as an argument for n0, an extra edge wasadded between n1 and n11. Also n1's associated Head and Declaration havebeen edited. N6 is a citation node, shown by the dashed border, that isserving as an argument of n1. N7 is an assumption of n0, shown by theblue edge. N12 is a Test of n7. N14 is a suggested edit of n12 (asindicated by its oval shape and dark blue arrow). N13 is an argument ofn12. N8 is a challenge of n6, n9 is an argument for n8, and n10 is achallenge of n9. N5 challenges n4 which argues for n1.

The system has rated the graph according to FIG. 6. It may begin withnodes n3, n5, n10, n7, n13, or n14, all of which are Edepth 0. (Note n7has an incoming Test edge but this doesn't affect the fact it has noincoming edge of type argument, challenge, or assumption and is thusEdepth 0). These nodes are all rated TE by block 6.4. Then it may updatethe Edepth 1 nodes, n2, n4, n9 (which are all NOT-TE at block 6.6 sincethey are all challenged by TE nodes) and n12 (which is TE at block 6.12since it has a TE argument.) Next it may update the Edepth 2 node n8(NOT TE at block 6.13 since its only argument is NOT TE). Next thesystem may update the Edepth 3 node n6 (TE at block 6.10). Next it mayupdate the Edepth 4 node n1 (TE at block 6.12). Next it may update theEdepth 5 node n11 (NOT TE at block 6.6). Finally it may update theEdepth 6 root n0, which is TE at block 6.12. The topic node of thisgraph is TE because it has a TE argument and its only assumption is TEand it is unchallenged.

FIG. 9 shows the graph of FIG. 8, only after CITATIONS RATINGS have beenturned on, instead of the Status rating. (in the upper right corner, theLayout dropdown menu (Dropdown1 displayed by the system when a userright-clicks on the whitespace) is visible, and the user has furtherselected “Citations Ratings” causing a further dropdown menu Dropdown14to be displayed, allowing selection of “Turn Off” and in the Presentpicture greying out “Turn On”. Since Turn On is greyed out in FIG. 9,and Turn Off is available, this indicates the system is currentlydisplaying Citation ratings (they are currently turned on). This is incontrast to the Citations Ratings menu displayed in FIG. 8, in whichTurn On was made available and Turn Off was greyed out, since FIG. 8shows the system performing its default status rating, rather than thealternative “citations ratings”.

Note that under Citations Ratings, the only TE nodes are nodes n6 andn1. NO has a TE argument based on said citation node, namely the edgefrom n1, but its assumption n7 is NOT TE as it has no support from acitation, and hence n0 is NOT-TE by block 6.8 in FIG. 7. No other nodeshave an argument based on a citation node (of which the only one in thisgraph is n6). For example, node n3 is NOT TE by block 7.3 and nodes n2and n12 etc. are also NOT TE by block 7.3.

The illustrative embodiment supports an additional feature referred toas axiomatization, or sometimes stipulation or postulation. As wasillustrated in FIG. 3, if users rightclick on a node, the system maydisplay a dropdown menu Dropdown2 including Axiomatize as an option. Ifthe user selects the axiomatize option, the system may mark the node asaxiomatized, storing data indicating that fact, and may displayindication the node is axiomatized on the displayed graph, for examplecoloring the node green. When nodes are axiomatized, the status ratingof nodes may be drawn from a wider set of values.

The motivation for supporting the axiomatize feature is that users mayhave irreconcilable differences over the truth of some statements.Axiomatization allows them to define a variable representing the truthof a node, and to rate the rest of the graph under the assumption theaxiomatized node is true or TE, and also to work out the ratingconsequences under the assumption it is false or NOT-TE.

In a sense the system thus may provide all parties means for narrowingtheir disagreements, for example by repeatedly breaking arguments upinto compound argument graphs until only relatively-concisewell-described portions of the argument are challenged. And once theycan refine the disagreement no further, the system may thus providemeans to see what the consequences of one disputant being correct are(if the challenge is abandoned), and to see that the consequence if theother party is correct (the challenge is valid), in which case thetentative establishment of down-stream statements would also beinvalidated if their tentative establishment depends on the TE C or TEstatus of the challenged node.

The downstream propagation of the effects of the axiomatization mayattach the variable representing a particular axiomatized node having aparticular statement to precisely those nodes (and thus statements)depending on the tentative establishment of said node in order to betentatively established, which may be determined purely from the graphstructure according to the definition of tentative establishment,(without needing to understand the substance of any entries) and so maybe simply assigned by the automated system.

In one embodiment, the status rating with axiomatization may take valuesamong the set: {Tentatively Established, Not Tentatively Established,Tentatively Established Subject to Condition} which are abbreviated TE,NOT-TE, TE C respectively. For nodes that have rating TE C, there isfurther maintained a condition. A respective Boolean variable may beallocated and intended or designated to represent or correspond to thetruth of each respective axiomatized node. The condition of each TE Cnode (and hence its associated declaration etc.) may be a Booleanexpression over (some of) said Boolean variables and their negations.

The system may further maintain an additional datum “True” or “False”for each TE C node according to whether its condition would be trueunder the assumption that all the axiomatized nodes are true orrespectively is false under this assumption that all the axiomatizednodes are true. As entries are made and edited in the data structure,the system may update the rating of nodes according to an algorithm.

A node may be rated as TE, if it would be established by an argumentthat would not be validly challenged for any possible assignment of thevalue TE to some axiomatized nodes and NOT-TE to other axiomatizednodes. Its truth doesn't depend on the assignment of T or F to theaxiomatized nodes and their respective Boolean variables, and it isreferred to as TE.

A node will be rated as TE C with condition, if the node would be TE forsome assignments of TE and NOT-TE to the axiomatized nodes, and NOT-TEfor other assignments of values to the axiomatized nodes. Its conditionwill be a Boolean expression over the respective Boolean variablescorresponding to the axiomatized nodes, more specifically a Booleanexpression that is defined by being true for precisely those assignmentsof T and F to the respective Boolean variables such that if therespective axiomatized nodes were set to TE or NOT-TE respectively, andthe rest of the graph were updated, said node's rating would be TE.

FIG. 6 and the discussion has explained how to rate a graph if there areno axiomatizations. If there are axiomatizations, then a node is TE ifit would be TE according to FIG. 6 no matter whether each of theaxiomatized nodes is fixed to be TE or is fixed to be NOT TE and therating of the rest of the graph is updated. If the node's ratingaccording to FIG. 6 does not depend on the rating of any axiomatizednode in the graph and is TE for all possible ratings of axiomatizednodes, then the node is TE. If there is a way to replace some of theaxiomatized nodes with TE and some of the axiomatized nodes with NOT-TEand update and make the node TE, and another way to assign ratings tothe axiomatized nodes that would make said node's rating NOT-TE, thensaid node may be rated TE C.

If a TE argument is modeled as a proof of its target, conditional on thetarget's Assumptions also being TE, and no disproof (TE challenge) beingpresent, then a node may be considered TE if it has a proof and nodisproof for any assignment to the axiomatized nodes. If its proofdepends, however, on some axiomatized nodes being assumed true or false,or if a disproof would be established for some choice of values for theaxiomatized nodes, then it may be TE C with a condition expressing thecondition upon which the proof and/or lack of disproof depends.

The update process for embodiments supporting axiomatization may befurther explicated with reference to FIGS. 10(a) and 10(b). To update agraph with axiomatized nodes, the system may first at block 6.1 sort thenodes in the graph by increasing EDepth. Here again the EDepth of a nodemay be the length of the longest path, following edge arrows, notincluding Test or Suggested Edit edges, that ends at said node. Next, atblock 10.20, the nodes may be updated in order of increasing EDepth,updating each node in turn according to FIG. 10(b). Updating the nodesin order of EDepth ensures that when each node is updated, its parents,if it has any, have already been updated since they must all be ofshorter EDepth, for if one were not of lesser EDepth, the longest pathto it plus its edge to the said each node would be a longer path to saideach node proving a contradiction to the hypothesis said one were not oflesser EDepth.

The update of a node according to FIG. 10(b) begins in block 10.1 byasking if the node is axiomatized, which may occur if a user withpermission to do so had selected a button provided by the system toaxiomatize the node, upon which the embodiment would store an annotationassociated with the node indicating that it was axiomatized. If yes,then the nodes rating at block 10.2 is TE C, with the condition T_N,where T_N may be a Boolean variable allocated to the node (N mayrepresent its node ID). Also it is considered TE C True, reflecting thefact that its condition is true if all of the axiomatization variablesof the graph are assumed true. (Its condition T_N is true if T_N is setTrue, so it is True if all axiomatization variables are set true sinceT_N is one of them.) An illustrative embodiment displays nodes that areTE C with rounded corners to distinguish them from nodes that do nothave conditional status, and draws the nodes which are TE C True withbold boundaries and bold outgoing edges as if they were TE, and the oneswhich are TE C False with thin boundaries and thin outgoing edges, as ifthey were NOT-TE.

FIG. 11 shows the graph of FIG. 8, after Nodes n6 and n4 have beenaxiomatized, as shown by their green color and rounded corners. Node n1is TE C True as shown by its rounded corners and bold edge, and node n11is TE C False as shown by its rounded corners and thin edge.

If the node is not axiomatized, the system determines at block 10.3 ifthe node is EDepth 0. If it is, then at block 10.4 it is TE. If not,then at block 10.5 the system asks whether it passes any of thefollowing tests: either (has a Challenge from TE Node), OR (has NOT-TEAssumption), OR (Has arguments, but all of them are NOT-TE)? Any ofthose three alternatives cause the node to be declared NOT TE at block10.6. (As usual note Citations may be considered a sub-type ofarguments.)

Otherwise the system determines at block 10.7 if there is [(NO Challengefrom a TE C Node) AND (NO TE C Assumptions) AND ((has TE Argument) OR(has No Argument))]?] If all those conditions are met, the node may beset to TE at block 10.8. Another way of explaining is, any challengefrom a TE C node may contribute a condition, because the node would notbe True when the challenge node was True. Any condition on an assumptionmay contribute a condition, because the assumptions may be required toall be true for the node to be considered true. And if none of itsarguments are TE, and it has TE C arguments, then they should contributea condition because in this embodiment the node may only be consideredtrue on the condition it has at least one true argument. If the answeris NO, at block 10.9, then the system may compute a condition X bycombining the contributions of the parents' conditions. The condition Xis set to equal

(AND(C1,C2, . . . ,Cn)AND(OR(A1,A2, . . . ,An))AND NOT(OR(D1,D2, . . .,Dn)))

whereCi are the conditions of TE C assumptions if any andDi are the conditions of TE C challenges if any andAi are the conditions of TE C arguments if there are TE C arguments butno TE ones.

If there are TE arguments (or TE citations) supporting the node, theywould count as if they were a TE C argument with condition always True,so the conditions of the other TE C arguments or citations becomeirrelevant, and there is no contribution to the condition of the nodefrom its arguments and citations. This Boolean expression monitorsexactly which assignments of True and False to the axiomatizationvariables T_N render the proper conditions on the parents of said nodeso that none of the Challenges' conditions are True, all of theassumptions' conditions (if any) are, and if it has no TE argument andat least one TE C argument, then at least one argument is True.

After X is computed, the system may next check at block 10.10 if X istautologically true, that is, if every possible assignment of True orFalse to the axiomatization variables contained in the expression X willrender the expression to have a true value, then at block 10.11 thesystem may set the node to TE. The node has been found to be TEindependent of the nodes that have been axiomatized. Since in graphsthere may typically be a finite number of nodes, and a small number ofthem may have normally been axiomatized, one may check for tautologicaltruth by simply exhaustively checking the Boolean expression X,methodically running through the powerset of assignments of true orfalse to the axiomatization variables T_N contained within it to see ifit is True for all assignments, or if it is False for all assignments.If it is true for all assignments, it may be referred to astautologically true, and if it is false for all assignments it may bereferred to as tautologically false.

Alternatively for each variable in X, one may check whether, for everypossible assignment of the other variables, the Truth or Falsehood of Xis the same whether T_N is set true or set false. If that happens, X isindependent of T_N, and may be simplified by replacing T_N within X byTrue and simplifying. If X is of form such that all variables within Xmay be so stripped out, so it depends on none of them, it may be foundto be either tautologically True or tautologically False depending onthe value reached.

Alternatively tautology may be checked using simplification rules. Somealternative embodiments may quit if they don't find a tautology in acutoff time, and assume none exists.

If X is found instead to be tautologically false (the condition X is notmade true by any assignment of True to some axiomatized node's variablesand False to other axiomatized nodes' variables) then the node may bedeclared NOT TE at block 10.13. Typically in practice nodes at block10.10 and at block 10.12 may be combined into one search over thepowerset of variable assignments. Alternative embodiments may omit theblocks 10.10 and 10.12 going straight from block 10.9 to block 10.14.

While the tautology check is being done, the system may discover thatthe truth value of X is independent of some of the variables itsexpression contains. For example, if the expression X were T_1 AND (T_2OR NOT (T_2)), the truth value of X would be independent of T_2. In suchcircumstances, the tautology checker may reduce the expression of X bysetting variables X does not depend on to True or False within it, andreducing the expression, and replacing X by the reduced version of X. Inthis instance X may be reduced to T_1. The system may save a listassociated with each node that is TE C of the axiomatization variablesits condition depends on, and may strike a variable from this list whenit detects that the truth of falsehood of said condition is neverchanged by simply changing the truth or falsehood of said variable, andmay display this list to users.

Finally if the condition X is found to be neither always true nor alwaysfalse when evaluated for axiomatized node assignments, the node is ratedTE C with condition X at block 10.14.

In FIG. 11, the graph of FIG. 8 has been modified by axiomatizing nodesn4 and n6. The rating of nodes that are not downstream from theaxiomatized nodes, is not affected by the axiomatization and remains thesame as it was in FIG. 8. So the Edepth 0—nodes n3, n5, n10, n7, n13,and n14, as well as the Edepthl nodes n2, n12, and n9, as well as theEdepth 2 node n8, all have ratings the same as in FIG. 8. However theaxiomatization of nodes n4 and n6 respectively renders n4 TE C withcondition T_N4 according to 10.2., and renders n6 TE C with conditionT_n6 according to 10.2. The axiomatization of n4 and n6 has beendisplayed in their green color. These are both also TE C True, sinceboth conditions are true if the axiomatization variables (namely T_n4and T_n6) are assumed true so the nodes are rendered with bold edges(and rounded corners, showing their conditional status). N6 is alsoshown with dashed border, which indicates it is a citation node. ThenEdepth 4 node n1 is rated to be TE C with condition (T_n6∥T_n4) (thatis, T_n6 OR T_n4) according to blocks 10.9 and 10.14. Since thiscondition is true if all the axiomatization variables are true, namelyhere T_n4 and T_n6, node n1 is TE C True and drawn with bold border, aswell as rounded corners to indicate its conditional status. Next Edepth5 node n11 is rated as TE C with condition NOT(T_n6∥T_n4) (that is (NOT(T_n6 OR T_n4))). Since this condition is false if all of theaxiomatization variables are assumed true, node n11 is considered TE CFALSE and drawn with thin border. It also has rounded corners because ithas conditional status. Under the assumption that both nodes n4 and n6are false, node n11 has been tentatively established true. The conditionof node n11 in some embodiments may be displayed to users who select anoffered command to display it.

Finally Edepth 6 node n0 may be updated. This node is TE by block 10.11because its condition X according to block 10.9 would be ((T_n6∥T_n4) IINOT(T_n6∥T_n4)) that is to say (T_n6 OR T_n4) OR (NOT (T_n6 OR T_n4)).Since this is true for any assignment of T or F to T_n6 and T_n4whatsoever, it is tautologically true. Hence Node n0 is rated TE anddrawn with sharp corners and bold border. In essence, there are twoconflicting arguments for n0. Under the hypotheses assumed in theaxiomatization, a first of these is true. But when it is not, the secondis true, so n0 may be considered TE.

It is also possible to employ axiomatization with Citations Rating. FIG.24 describes the modification. The conditions are handled as in FIG. 10,but again truth must be grounded in a citation, or an axiomatized node.An unaxiomatized EDepth-0 node will be handled by block 24.1 if it isnot a citation because it will also have no argument, so it will berated NOT-TE at block 24.2 It will be handled by block 24.4 if it is acitation. A node will be rated as TE if it has a TE argument or isitself a citation, and is not challenged by any TE or TE C nodes, anddoes not have any assumptions that are NOT-TE. It will be rated as NOTTE if it does not have a TE or TE C argument and is not itself aCitation, or if it has a TE challenge or not TE assumption. Theconditional status is otherwise handled as before, for axiomatized nodesby block 10.2, and for other nodes it is inherited from parentsaccording to block 10.9.

FIG. 25 shows a screenshot of the Graph of FIG. 11 with Citations ratingturned on. Nodes n3, n5, n7, n10, n13, n14, n2, n9, and n12 are allNOT-TE because they are not supported by a TE argument or citation. N4would also be, but since it is axiomatized, its rating is TE C T_n4, byblock 10.2, which is TE True. (Continuing in EDepth order) n8 is NOT TEbecause it has no TE argument and is not a citation. N6 is a citation,but it is also axiomatized in the graph, so its rating by block 10.2 isTE C with condition T_n6, which makes it TE C True, so it is drawn withrounded corners and bold (dashed because it's a citation) border. Thenode n1 is TE C True with condition T_n6∥T_n4 by block 10.9. Next n11 isNOT TE because it has no support from a TE argument or citation, atblock 24.2. Finally n0 is NOT TE because it has a NOT TE assumption, atblock 24.2

Some embodiments may support additional node types that may havespecific update rules. An illustrative embodiment may support n-waychoice nodes, or negation nodes, which may be n-way choice nodes forn=2. The system may allow users to create negation nodes or n-way choicenodes by means similar to how they create and edit other types of nodes.For example, in the drop drown menu Dropdown1 shown open on thedashboard Controlpanel1 in FIG. 4, the next alternative is Negation,which in this embodiment may create the new node, when the Add button isselected, as a Negation node to node n2. Alternatively some embodimentsmay offer an “Add n-way choice node” button, that when selected adds aset of n nodes, for “n” a user configurable parameter. Or alternativelyan embodiment may offer to create an additional node alternative to aselected node, and its existing alternatives. Users may then add nodesto the set, and at any given time the system would consider that achoice is to be made between the alternatives that have been given, sothat at most one of them is expected to be TE.

A motivation for supporting n-way choice nodes, or negation nodes, maybe that they may help users to graph decisions in which they wish tomake a forced choice between a number of alternatives. It is a principleof logic that one and only one of a proposition and its negation istrue. Negation nodes may represent a statement in one node, and itsnegation in the other node. An alternative example may be that if a firmwishes to hire a candidate, they may wish to create a graph with a 4-wayalternative to help decide which of 4 candidates they want to hire, orthey may wish to create a graph with a 5 way alternative to help decidewhich of 4 candidates or a node representing none-of-the-above they wishto hire. The system may update ratings that consider one of a set ofn-choice nodes to be TE only when there is an argument for it that isnot validly challenged, and there is no such argument for any of theother choice nodes. An argument for one choice node is thus in a sense achallenge of the others.

N-way choice nodes may be represented as if every pair of them has abi-directional edge between it. Or they may be represented by ahyper-edge that connects n nodes and has the same effects. (The onlydifference may be visual representation in displays.) The systemmaintains data indicating that they are alternatives in an n-way choice.Bidirectional edges between each pair may or may not be displayed on thegraph depending on the embodiment, but they may be considered implicit.However, the system may enforce the rule that users may not be offeredthe permission to create any edge that would allow a closed directedloop on the graph, including any loops that would be formed usingbidirectional edges assumed between each pair of members within eachn-way set. With n-way alternative nodes or negation nodes, thedefinition of Edepth may restrict the paths defining the Edepth of eachnode to visit no more than 2 of the alternative nodes (nor the same onetwice), so that for example no such path could go both ways along abidirectional negation edge, but paths that go one way along abidirectional negation edge (or jump between two alternatives in caseswhere the bidirectional edges are not displayed) may be allowed.

Motivated by the above discussion, in order to compute when there is anargument for a particular choice that nobody has a valid objection to,the system should ensure that nobody has a valid argument supporting analternative choice, for that would in effect constitute a validobjection to said particular choice. So assuming no axiomatizations, anode in the n-way choice may be rated TE when there is a TE argument forit, and all its assumptions are TE, and it has no TE challenge, andthere is no similar case for any other choice node, ie no otheralternative also has a TE argument for it, and all its assumptions areTE, and it has no TE challenge. A node in an n-way choice may be ratedNOT-TE when there is a TE argument for some other alternative, (and saidother alternative's assumptions are TE and it has no TE challenges)whether or not there is a TE argument for said node itself. In the casewhere there are TE arguments for more than one alternative, all of thealternatives may be rated NOT-TE.

The embodiment may add axiomatization into this by rating aforced-choice node TE in those cases (ie assignments of TRUE or FALSE toaxiomatization variables) when said forced-choice node would be made TEand none of its alternatives would be. So the node may be rated TE whenthere is a TE argument for it, and all its assumptions are TE, and ithas no TE or TE C challenge, and there is no case for any other choicenode, ie no other alternative also has a TE or TE C argument for it, andall its assumptions are TE or TE C, and it has no TE or TE C challenge.A node in an n-way choice may be rated NOT-TE when there is a TEargument for some other alternative, (and said other alternative'sassumptions are TE and it has no TE or TE C challenges) whether or notthere is a TE or TE C argument for said node itself.

Note the system, in some embodiments, may check to ensure that only oneof a set of choice alternatives may be axiomatized, not offering usersan option to axiomatize a node in a choice set while another one isaxiomatized, just as the system may check and not allow a node to beaxiomatized if a node that challenges it or is challenged by it isalready axiomatized.

When n-way choice nodes are included, the EDepth of a node may bedefined as the length of the longest path ending on the node comprisedof argument, assumption, challenge, citation, and n-way choice edges,but including at most one n-way choice edge in each n-way set. That isto say, the longest path defining the Edepth of a node is not allowed topass through more than 2 members of any set of forced-choicealternatives, nor the same member twice.

Now it may be seen that the E-depth of any two members of an n-waychoice may not differ by more than 1. To show this, assumehypothetically the contradiction that the deepest member of the set was2 or more deeper than a shallower alternative. The longest path to a setof alternatives may always contain the edge between two of thealternative nodes as its last, or else a longer path to an alternativewould be immediate by tacking on the edge to it. Then the last edge maynot have been from said shallower alternative to said deepest member,for then the latter would be 1 deeper not 2. So it may have been fromanother alternative. But this is also a contradiction, because then adeeper path may be constructed to said putative shallower one, by makingthe last edge of the path go to said (hypothesized) shallower noderather than said (hypothesized) deeper one. Hence there is acontradiction, and the maximum possible depth difference between twoalternative nodes may be 1.

In one embodiment, a system may define a rating update for n-way choicenodes according to FIGS. 12(a), 12(b) and 12(c). First at block 12.1,the nodes in the graph may be sorted by EDepth. Then the system may gothrough the nodes in the graph in order of increasing EDepth from 0 onup, updating each node according to FIG. 12(b).

In FIG. 12(b), to evaluate a node, the system may first ask at block12.3 whether it is or is not an n-choice node. If it is not, the systemmay then go to block 12.5, and update the node as has been previouslydescribed for non-choice nodes. Depending on the embodiment, FIGS.10(b), 6(b), and 7(b) and 24(b) have been discussed as alternativeupdate rules. If however the node is a choice node, then the systemproceeds to evaluate it and the other choice nodes that are itsalternatives according to FIG. 12(c). Note that since the set of partnernodes differ in depth by at most 1, updating all of the choice nodeswhen the shallowest one is updated may involve updating only nodes thathave already had all of their respective parents updated. If one assumeshypothetically that there was an unupdated parent of one alternative,there may again be a contradiction because a longer path (longer thanits assumed shallowest Edepth) to said shallowest alternative would passthrough said un-updated parent (which must be at least as deep to stillbe un-updated) and said one of them that has not had all its parentsupdated and the negation connection between said one of them and saidsuch shallowest alternative.

The system, as shown in FIG. 12(c), evaluates each of the n alternativesby rating it independently as if it were not a choice node and assumingits edges to the other choice nodes were not there, according to block12.5 as if it were any other type of node. The rating that is computedin this way is saved as a temporary value. At the end of this step, thesystem may provide a list U1, U2, . . . , UN with a temporary value foreach i in {1, 2, . . . , n}, each of the alternatives in the choice.

Next, at block 12.7, the system may form a list of n conditions Ci for iin {1, 2, . . . , n}. Ci will be TRUE if Ui was found to be TE. Ci willbe FALSE if Ui was found to be NOT-TE. And Ci will be the conditioncondition_i of Ui, if Ui was found to be TE C with condition_i.

The motivation of this is Ci expresses under what conditions the node iis tentatively established, (with the bidirectional edges cut, not yettaking into account any support for its alternatives). If it's TE, it'sestablished under all conditions, so Ci is True. If it's NOT TE it'sestablished under no conditions, so Ci is False. And if it's TE C withsome condition Xi, then Ci will be Xi

If node i is axiomatized, then Ci will be T_Ni, that is theaxiomatization variable declared by the axiomatization and assigned tothe node of alternative i. The point of this may be that each Cirepresents the states where alternative i has been independentlyestablished. This means, that for such conditions, none of the othernodes should be anything other than NOT-TE, (because proof of one nodeis disproof of another). For these conditions, this node may beconsidered true or established if not encumbered by a similar case foranother alternative. If one alternative is axiomatized, however, thattrumps even other nodes j that have a TE rating Uj. Axiomatizationrepresents an assumption the node is in fact true, which may contradictother established arguments. (Embodiments may be configured so as to notpresent the option to users to create directly competing assumptions,that is axiomatizaton of two nodes such that one challenges or is anexclusive alternative to the other (as expressed using forced-choicenodes.) The point of axiomatization is to support users in makinghypotheses that may contradict posted arguments and verifying theirconsequences for what can and can't be tentatively established undersuch hypotheses.

Next in block 12.8 a list may be computed by the system for i in {1, . .. , n}. Each Di may be defined as the conjunction of Ci with thenegation of Cj for all j other than i in {1, . . . , n}. For example, ina 3-way choice, D1 would be C1 AND (NOT(C2)) AND (NOT (C3)). D2 would be(NOT(C1)) AND C2 AND (NOT (C3)). D3 would be (NOT(C1)) AND (NOT (C2))AND C3). Note that as stated, for any i such the Ci is TRUE, the systemmay set Dj to False for all alternatives j different than i, withoutbothering to compute the conjunction, because it is ANDed with a FALSEterm, unless j is axiomatized. And for any i such that Ci is FALSE, Dimay be set to FALSE and Ci may be omitted from all the otherconjunctions, simplifying them, since it appears as its negation (whichis then TRUE) which is conjoined into them, And conjoining TRUE with anylogical expression X to form TRUE AND X does not affect its truth value,it is still the same as whatever X's value is.

If alternative i is axiomatized, then its rating is set to T_Ni, whereT_Ni is an axiomatization variable declared by axiomatizing said node(alternative i, also labelled here as Ni.) If n is 2, so that there is a2-way choice (which may also be known as negation nodes), the system mayalso set D_j to be NOT(T_Ni) when node i is axiomatized, for j thenegation or partner of i. This may be because for a forced choice,assuming it is not the first choice may be considered to be assuming itis the second and vice versa. However for n>2, the assumption that onealternative is FALSE does not imply the assumption that any particularalternative is true. Then in block 12.9, the system may set each of thealternatives rating according to its Di. If Di is TRUE, node i is ratedTE. If it is FALSE, node i is rated NOT TE. And otherwise, the node i israted TE C with condition Di.

FIG. 13 shows an example graph with a 3-way choice node. Candidate A n0,Candidate B n19, and Candidate C n21 are 3 alternative choices, as shownby their being connected by double-pointed arrows. The ratings may beobtained according to FIG. 12 as follows. The EDepth 0 nodes n22, n23,n24), are all TE by blocks 12.5 and 10.4. Then the system may compute atemporary value U1 corresponding to Candidate A, n0, and temporary valueU2 corresponding to Candidate B, n19, and a temporary value U3corresponding to Candidate C n21. U1, and U2 are TE by blocks 12.6 and10.8 and U3 is NOT-TE by blocks 12.6 and 10.6 since its node has a TEchallenge. Next C1 and C2 are found to be TRUE and C3 is found to beFALSE by block 12.7. Then in block 12.8 D1 is set to TRUE AND NOT (TRUE)AND NOT (FALSE) which is FALSE and D2 is similarly set to FALSE and D3corresponding to n21 is similarly FALSE. So all three nodes are ratedNOT-TE ay block 12.9 and shown in thin borders, as are their outgoingedges. Finally EDepth 3 node n27 is rated NOT-TE because its onlyargument is rated NOT-TE.

In FIG. 13, the Add Node window Editwindowl is shown opened, Addingchallenge to node n24. The text “X is too expensive. We shou . . . ” isbeing added to the running head of the new challenge node. The text “Xdoesn't make any sense for our company because . . . ” is being added asthe declaration of the new challenge node. This window may have beenopened in response to a user right-clicking on node n24 and selecting toadd a challenge from the dropdown the system draws.

FIG. 16 shows the graph of FIG. 13 after the Create Node button isselected by the user on the Add node window. The new challenge node n25has been attached challenging n24. Now X too expensive . . . n25 isEDepth 0 and TE by blocks 12.5 and 10.4 as are the other Edepth 0 nodesn22 and n23. Edepth 1 node n24 is NOT TE by blocks 12.5 and 10.6 sinceit has a TE challenge. Next node n0 is EDepth 2 and nodes n19 and n21are EDepth 3. This is because Edepth defining paths can only use at mostone negation edge. The paths defining n0 as Edepth 2 can be n25 n24 n0or n22 n21 n0 or n22 n19 n0. Node n19 is Edepth 3 because of path n25n24 n0 n19, as is n21 because of path n25 n24 n0 n21. So the next nodeevaluated according to 12.2 is node n0. According to blocks 12.3 and12.4, evaluate n0, n19, and n21 are then evaluated simultaneously.

The system may compute a temporary value U1 corresponding to CandidateA, n0, and temporary value U2 corresponding to Candidate B, n19, and atemporary value U3 corresponding to Candidate C n21. U1 is NOT-TE byblocks 12.6 and 10.6 because it has a NOT-TE assumption, n24. U2 is TEby blocks 12.6 and 10.8 because it has a TE argument n22. U3 is NOT-TEat blocks 12.6 and 10.6 because it has a TE challenge, n22.

Next C1 and C3 are found to be FALSE and C2 is found to be TRUE by block12.7. Then in block 12.8 D1 and D3 are FALSE and D2 is TRUE. So nodesCandidate A n0 Candidate C n21 are rated NOT-TE at block 12.9 and shownin thin borders, as are their outgoing edges, but node Candidate B n19is rated TE and shown in bold borders. There is an argument for it thatis unchallenged, n22, and each of the other alternatives is notsupported: n21 has a TE challenge and n0 has a TE challenged assumption.Finally node n27 is rated TE because it has a TE argument.

FIG. 20 shows the graph of FIG. 15 after node n24 has been axiomatized.The system displays the node n24 in color, e.g., green, to indicate theaxiomatization to users. The Edepth of all nodes is unaffected by theaxiomatization, and Edepth 0 node2 n29, n23, and n22 thus have theirrating unaffected. They are all still TE. By blocks 12.5 and 10.2 Noden24 now is rated TE C T_n24 that is, TE C with condition T_n24. It alsois considered TE C True because its condition T_n24 is true if theaxiomatization variables (in this case T_n24) are assumed true. Thus theembodiment draws node n24 with thick black borders to denote its Truestatus, and with rounded corners to denote its conditional status. Next,as before, the ratings of nodes n0, n19, and n21 are computedsimultaneously, starting by computing respectively U1, U2, U3. U1 is TEC T_n24 by blocks 12.6 and 10.14 because it inherits the condition ofits assumption. U2 which corresponds to n19 is TE by block 10.8 becauseit has a TE argument. U3 is NOT TE because it has a TE challenge.

C1 corresponding to U1 is T_n24. C2 corresponding to U2 is TRUE. C3corresponding to U3 is FALSE at block 12.7.

D1 corresponding to U1 is FALSE, because C2 is TRUE. D2 corresponding toU2, is C2 and NOT C1 and NOT (C3) by block 12.8, which may be computedas TRUE AND NOT(T_n24) AND NOT (FALSE) which reduces to NOT(T_n24) usingthe simplification rules that TRUE may be removed from conjunctions andNOT(FALSE) may be replaced by TRUE. In block 12.8 the system maysimplify by replacing NOT(FALSE) with TRUE and NOT(TRUE) with FALSE andreducing an expression into which TRUE is conjoined by removing theTRUE, and reducing an expression into which FALSE is conjoined byreplacing the whole expression with FALSE.

So at block 12.9 the system rates node n0 is NOT-TE (as D1 is FALSE),node n19 as TE C NOT(T_n24) which is TE FALSE since NOT(T_n24) is falseif all the axiomatization variables for the graph are True and n21 isNOT-TE. Thus nodes n0 and n21 are drawn with thin borders and hardcorners and n19 is drawn with rounded corners designating conditionalstatus and thin borders designating TE C FALSE status. Finally node n27is rated TE C False by 12.5 and 10.14, and drawn with rounded cornersand thin border, because it inherits the condition of its only argumentn19, which is NOT(T_n24). This example may represent how members of acorporation may use the system to evaluate which of three candidatesthey should hire. Different employees may contribute different nodes andarguments, allowing collaboration. As more information is added to thegraph, the system evaluates whether any of the options is tentativelyestablished as the best choice. The system may take into accountinformation about various pertinent topics such as what future course ofaction might be best for the company, revising hiring decisions as thisis updated. The example may represent also how the members may discusswhat actions to take after deciding on a candidate. The rating of noden27, for example, may argue that the company should pursue option Y,conditional on the presumption the company won't pursue option X. Ifthey have decided to pursue option X (as reflected in the axiomatizationof n24) the graph still points out that they have unchallenged andindeed tentatively established arguments for both Candidate A andCandidate B, so there is not yet a clear victor. This may motivate anemployee to find a valid argument that refutes n23 or n22, in order toresolve the conflict and come to a clear decision.

Note alternative stylistic displays of the computed rating informationmay be made available in alternative embodiments. In other embodimentusers who save axiomatized graphs, may save the graph in addition to(rather than on top of) the existing common graph so that users may beable to visit and edit alternative axiomatization versions of a graph.

Note that there may be a 1 to 1 correspondence between nodes and theargument or statement or declaration or challenge or test or suggestededit or citation that maps into them, so the node's rating or theargument's rating (or the statement's rating, or etc.) isinterchangeably referred to herein, meaning the same rating, andsimilarly in embodiments which support scores or likelihoods, there is acorrespondence between a node's score or likelihood and thecorresponding statements' score or likelihood, or the correspondingargument's score or likelihood, so that such term may be referred tointerchangeably.

The modifications of the update rules to add conditional update statusare also easy to understand. TE C X status is intended to mean that thenode would be TE in the event that the condition X were to be true(which may mean that appropriate ancestor arguments and statements areTE in order to ensure the TE status). So whenever a node is relying onan ancestor being TE for its TE status, and that ancestor is in fact TEC C1, then said node also should have a factor C1 reflected in itsconditional TE status. And if a statement has a negation which is TE CD1, then its TE status may pick up a term NOT(D1). If there is no TE orTE C challenge of an argument, and all of its assumptions are TE, thenit is TE (in a one embodiment.)

By supporting the ability of users to enter multiple differentcombinations of likelihoods as updates, an alternative embodiment of thesystem may support the ability to build a precise and complexprobabilistic model. A set of standard update rules that may be offeredmay include one combining arguments that are independent, another usefulfor combining arguments that are statistical assays of whether astatement holds, rather than causes of the argument holding. When suchcombination rules are chosen from the library, the system may mark thenode in a characteristic way, to indicate that a particular rule wasused. The system of such embodiment may continue to support thechallenge and counterchallenge abilities, and users may thus challenge anode when they question its posited update rule. Thus this system maysupport the ability of users to create a transparently verifiabledisplay that a precise and complex probabilistic argument tree arrivesat particular likelihoods for particular nodes using only arguments andevidence that is unchallenged, or where the likelihood estimates takeinto account the challenges.

An alternative embodiment of a system may support the entry, in additionto Challenges, Arguments, Statements, and for each of these a PL fieldor multiple such fields, the entry of update rules. Other node typessuch as Arguments and Statements may have a field for update rule.

The flow chart for updating such an embodiment may be as in FIG. 12(a),except the update of a node in block 12.2 may first check if the nodehas an update rule entered, and may use the node's update rule insteadof or in addition to the normal rule specified in FIG. 12(b). (Whetherinstead of or in addition to may depend on whether the update rule wasspecified to be used instead of the normal or in addition to it, forcomputing another rating or score as in the case of EL. One or bothoptions may be supported.)

Examples of embodiments of systems that may support entry of alternativeupdate rules are shown in FIGS. 14(a) and 14(b). In FIG. 14(a), aninference graph illustrates the kind that may be prepared using a systemsupporting entry of an update rule for statements with multiplearguments. A user has entered an update rule for node 14.1, whosestatement may be Statement X. The system may offer certain users theability to enter an update rule into a field when editing the node, thenode statement, or an argument supporting the node, or when adding a newargument supporting the node. If no update rule is entered, the systemmay assume a standard rule, such as those in the embodiments above. Thesystem may support several standard rules to choose from, and/or allowequations or simple programs to be written.

The system in the example may support entry into nodes of a PL orproposed likelihood and computation of an EL or Expected Likelihood,which may be a score or rating assigned to nodes and displayed to users.A user may have entered at node 14.2 the argument “A likely cause of Xis Y”, the PL 0.7, and the UR: EL=PL*Max(EL1,EL2) at block 14.21. He mayhave entered Assumption 1 in node 14.4 with PL:1.0 and Assumption 2 atnode 14.5 with PL=0. He may have entered another argument for result atnodes 14.1, 14.3, entering as text in the argument field “If Y doesn'tcause X, then Z would” with PL=0.2.)

Now when this system is updated, all nodes may be updated as TE usingthe method of FIGS. 12(a) and 12(b) (since there are no challenges asyet in the graph), but updating the likelihood, for the nodes where a URwas specified, the specified UR may be used instead. The UR at block14.11 may be a standard type of UR that may be invoked by users who maybe interested in combining causes that may each independently cause thestatement. This may have a designation like “Add-Indy” and when editinga node with multiple arguments, there may be a button or a command “UseAdd-Indy” available to users editing a node with more than one argumentthat when clicked may insert the update rule of block 14.11. Forcombining more than two arguments, the Use Add-Indy may use equationslike

EL_(stat):=EL_(arg1)+(1−EL_(arg1))(EL_(arg2)+(1−EL_(arg2))(EL_(arg3)+(1−EL_(arg3))(EL_(arg4)+. . . )) . . . )

where stat represents the node being updated arg1 represents the firstargument and arg1 the i-th argument . . . and EL represents an “ExpectedLikelihood” which may be a numerical rating updated for each node insome embodiments. Alternatively the user may have added the Update Rule(UR) by keyboard, entering it into the UR field.

The UR at block 14.21 may be a standard type of UR that may be used forupdating arguments where the user believes either argument being truemight by itself establish the argument, rather than both beingnecessary. There may be a button or a command “Use Each-Sufficient”available to users editing an argument node with multiple assumptionsthat adds the update rule at block 14.21 or the user may have added itby hand, entering it into the UR field. There may be a small library ofstandard combination methods and users may be able to select easily fromthe library and paste into or include a standard update rule whenediting a node. The system of the embodiment may also support entry ofnon-standard update rules in a language as shown here. In FIG. 14(a) theupdate has proceeded by updating at node 14.3 to EL=0.2 using a defaultequation since no other rule was specified, and updated at node 14.4 toEL=1.0 using a default equation (by default in this embodiment), and atnode 14.5 to EL=0.0 using a default equation, and then updated at node14.2 to EL=0.7 using specified ruled at block 14.21 with EL1 being theEL of Assumption 1 and EL2 set to the EL of Assumption 2. Then at node14.1 EL=0.76 is updated using update rule at block 14.11 with EL1 set tothe EL=0.7 of the first Argument (node 14.2) and EL2 set to the EL=0.2of the second Argument, 0.76=0.7+(1−0.7)*0.2.

By supporting the ability of users to enter multiple differentcombinations of likelihoods as updates, the system supports the abilityto build a precise and complex probabilistic model. A set of standardupdate rules that may be offered may include one combining argumentsthat are independent, another useful for combining arguments that arestatistical assays of whether a statement holds, rather than causes ofthe argument holding. When such combination rules are chosen from thelibrary, the system may mark the node in a characteristic way, toindicate that a particular rule was used. The embodiment of the systemmay continue to support the challenge and counterchallenge abilities,and users may thus challenge a node when they question its positedupdate rule. Thus this system may support the ability of users to createa transparently verifiable display that a precise and complexprobabilistic argument tree arrives at particular likelihoods forparticular nodes using only arguments and evidence that is unchallenged,or where the likelihood estimates take into account the challenges.

FIG. 14(b) depicts an alternative embodiment where, rather than allowingan update rule to be entered into a statement node with multiplearguments, the system may support the creation of connector nodes suchas at node 14.7 that specify the update to be used in combining multiplearguments for a statement. The same update rule at block 14.11 has nowbeen entered into node at node 14.7 as at block 14.71. The user whoattempted to add a second argument at node 14.9 for Statement X may havebeen prompted to specify the update rule for this node. The shape of thenode in the display may indicate the particular type of rule it uses. Byrequiring multiple arguments for a node to filter together through oneor more connector nodes the system may make transparent what assumptionsare being made in how the combination of causes or evidence is beingperformed, and facilitate challenges of the update-rule nodesthemselves.

In an alternative embodiment yet, a score could be computed according toestimated likelihood as above, but using only TE nodes, or alternativelyonly nodes TE or TE C. These would estimate a value that may facilitatetransparently discovering and representing the likelihood that nodes'statements are valid.

Embodiments may provide a system that supports abilities where users mayhave the following capabilities:

(1) To enter or edit arguments and statements into memory storage, in adata structure such that arguments may be associated with resultstatements and assumption statements. The system may represent this as agraph with directed edges from an argument node to its result nodes andfrom its assumption nodes. Two nodes may be identified if theirstatement is identical. Nodes may be specified and/or automaticallyrecognized as negations.(2) To view the associated graphical structure and to view arguments orstatements associated with nodes of it, and to view the tentativeestablishment status of nodes and the challenge status of arguments,where the tentative-establishment status is updated periodically, forexample after each edit or challenge or response, by the computer systemaccording to an algorithm depending on the graph structure and thechallenged nature of the arguments,(3) To Challenge arguments, providing an argument associated with thechallenge, or to challenge statements(4) To Respond to challenged arguments by one or more of(a) editing the argument,(b) editing it in a way breaking it down into a compound argument, bybuilding a subgraph structure with at least one additional statement,(c) challenging the challenge argument or other assumptions or argumentsits TE status may depend on,(d) assuming the Conditional Axiom that said challenge is invalid, inwhich case the system may propagate CA tags to downstream (followingedge directions in the graphical structure) results whosetentative-establishment would depend on a result of said challengedargument. These tags may link said challenge and its associatedargument.

Responses may resolve the challenge, so that it is no longer consideredin the update.

The system may also manage user permissions, so that users may forexample retain ownership of arguments they have entered, keeping theexclusive right to respond to challenges on them, or so that some usersmay be excluded from modifying portions of the graph, for example sothat two teams can retain rights to arguments and counter-argumentsrespectively. So not all users need have all of the above capabilitieson all entries or fields.

The above capabilities may be made available to multiple users for oneor more shared graphs. The users may have different permissions ondifferent shared graphs.

The tentatively-established status of the statements may be computed bythe system. When an argument is challenged, the update may propagatealong the edges of the graph changing the status of any node whoseprevious tentatively established status depended on the TE status ofsaid argument. When a new argument is made or a challenge is respondedto, it may propagate forward changing the status to tentativelyestablished as far as justified by the rule, for example as far as itcontinues to change the status of a result because it changes the statusof an assumption of an argument for it.

The system may also provide abilities for users to see different sets ofresults depending on different assumptions. For example, a user may havethe option to have the system display the tentative-establishment ofgraph nodes under the condition that any particular unanswered challengeis taken as a Conditional Axiom, or any set of unanswered challenges aretaken as conditional axioms, or any unanswered challenge is not taken asconditional axiom, or any sets of challenges and nodes are and are nottaken as conditional axioms, in other words the system may allow theuser to simulate various alternative choices. It may also supportchoices such as modifying the graph so as to remove all challenges fromsome specific set of users. The system may also support users to definealternative algorithms for assigning a score to nodes of the tree interms of the score at neighboring nodes on the graph. For example, usersmay have the capability to enter rules for combining scores at parentnodes in the tree (perhaps representing probabilities) into a score forthe result of an unchallenged argument.

In an alternative embodiment, an argument may specify sets of itsarguments that are necessary and sufficient for it to be valid, in whichcase it would be updated to TE when a sufficient set of its parentassumptions were TE rather than all of them. In such an embodiment, theusers may be required to enter the specification of which subsets arenecessary and sufficient in a way comprehensible to the computerprogram, for example as a logical formula in some language provided inthe software or internally specified with some graphical representation.

Another option that may be embodied in the system is to only enable theconstruction of arguments consistent with planar graphs. A furtherrestriction that may be added is that there may be only one argument fora certain specified final result. The system may enable insertion of newassumptions or arguments spreading the image, but preserving theplanarity.

Statement nodes and argument nodes may be interchangeable terms,referring in either case to nodes containing statements that may haveoutgoing argument edges. When a new node is added by adding it to anexisting node with an outgoing (from the existing node) edge to the newnode, it may be reasonable to refer to the node as a statement nodesince it does not yet have a result. But as may be seen in the aboveexamples, one may also refer to all the nodes as statement nodes, anddefine the argument or challenge or assumption property purely in termsof the edge that is attached.

For realistic problems, argument graphs may become quite complex so itmay be preferable to facilitate the focus of users on important aspects.Two simple modifications facilitate this. One is that the model mayelide some distinctions that were made before between statement nodesand argument nodes. The system may allow the creator or editor of a nodeto determine whether it has assumptions that must be established for itto apply. The system may thus allow a first statement node to be anargument for a second (and the second to be a result of the first).Supporting these constructions facilitates users to enter a compoundgraph without worrying as much about the details, which may be adjustedafter challenges. The system may also support challenges against edges,so that a user may challenge the edge between said first statement andsaid second statement, thus allowing the first statement to be TE whilechallenging whether it indeed provides support for the second statement.An example of this is shown in FIGS. 15(a), 15(b) and 15(c).

FIG. 15a shows a compound graph in which statement node at block 15.2has an outgoing result edge 15.4 to statement node at block 15.1. FIG.15b shows the graph after challenge at block 15.8 has been attached toedge 15.4 (and also to edge 15.5). Note edge 15.4 no longer extends toblock 15.1, but rather encounters an inserted empty argument node atblock 15.41, from which an edge continues to block 15.1, not boldbecause the argument node is not TE, because it is challenged by TE nodeat block 15.8 shown in bold, and that node at block 15.1 is no longertentatively established. However nodes at blocks 15.2 and 15.3 are stillTE. This is akin to accepting the first statement may be valid, butchallenging whether it in fact implies the second statement. In someembodiments this may be represented simply as a challenge to the edge,but in the embodiment illustrated in the FIG. a challenge of an edge isshown as inserting an empty argument node in middle of the edge. Achallenge of the edge may then be answered by editing said insertedempty argument node having as argument the first statement and as resultthe second statement. (In embodiments where the challenge doesn'tautomatically insert an empty argument node, the responding user mayinsert one. Also in such embodiments, node depth computations used todecide which order to update nodes in, may be modified to be computed asif an additional argument node had been inserted in the edge andchallenged).

FIG. 15(c) shows the graph after that challenge has been responded to byinserting an argument node at block 15.9. This argument node may furtherbe challenged in subsequent user actions.

This flexibility allows one or more users constructing an argument graphto put in only statement nodes sketching the argument, and to insert oredit argument nodes later if necessary to respond to challenges thatusers raise about some of the implication edges they had inserted.

FIGS. 15(a), 15(b) and 15(c) show three graphs prepared according tothis system. FIG. 15(a) shows a compound graph that has been enteredsupporting the statement at block 15.1. Note that the user has chainedstatement nodes represented by rectangles one to another. Note all nodesare TE, as indicated visually by their thick borders and edges. FIG.15(b) shows the graph after a user has challenged the edges 15.4 and15.5 with challenge node at block 15.8. Block 15.8 is thus an example ofa node with two results (child nodes). In this embodiment challenging anedge is displayed by inserting a dummy argument node into the edge (atblocks 15.41 and 15.51 respectively for edges 15.4 and 15.5). Because ofthe challenges, the dummy nodes and their outgoing edges are marked inlight lines, as NOT-TE, and block 15.1 is also no longer TE because ithas no TE argument. FIG. 15(c) shows the situation after a user hasresponded to the challenges by editing the dummy nodes. In this case theuser has merged the dummy nodes into at block 15.9 which she has made anargument node, having blocks 15.2 and 15.3 as assumptions. (One way theuser might do this is by deleting one of the dummy nodes and editing theother in an appropriate fashion, including adding edges.) This isindicated by the round edged rectangle used to display the node at block15.9. Of course, other transparent conventions for indicating status andnode type could be adopted instead of specifically thicker borders andvaried shape. The challenge at block 15.8 has been marked with an R atblock 15.81 for Resolved and has been greyed out and is ignored instatus updates. It may at some point be deleted from view of users. Notethat node at block 15.1 is now TE again. In other embodiments, the nodeat block 15.9 would have no special marking after being edited, and alsoit may be necessary for the responding user to challenge the challengingnode at block 15.8 in order to restore the TE status of node at block15.9 and hence of block 15.1.

It may be understood that the flow charts of FIGS. 6(a) and 6(b) provideone means of examining the graph and assigning to each node a status insuch a way that for all nodes on the graph, a node is TE if and only ifthere is a valid argument for it and no valid challenge of it. Thedefinition of valid argument may be to some extent conventional, but areasonable convention is that if a node has assumptions and they are TE,and it has no challenge that is not NOT-TE, then it is TE, or if itdoesn't have assumptions but there is a TE argument for it, and nochallenge that is not NOT-TE then it is TE. A node with no parentsconventionally has been taken has to be TE, which allows graphs with TEnodes to be built. Ratings with some specified nodes axiomatized havebeen updated, meaning that the specified nodes' ratings may behypothetically set to TE or NOT-TE, and the rating extended to othernodes on the graph according to having every node be TE if it has all TEassumptions or no assumptions and a TE argument and no TE challenge.When such hypothetical assignments are made, the ratings of some nodesin the graph may change from NOT-TE to TE. Those nodes are then said tobe TE C, with the condition being the particular axiomatization thatcaused them to become TE.

So the rating of all nodes may be found by finding a rating assignmentfor all nodes such that each node's rating is TE if it has no parents;or if all its assumptions are TE and it has no TE or TE C challenge ornegation and has at least one TE argument or else has TE assumptions;and otherwise it is not going to be TE, and the node may be TE C C1 forC1 some condition, if it would be TE precisely if C1 were assumed true,where C1 may be an assumption that some set of other nodes are set to TEor are set to NOT-TE and updates were done downstream in the graph,i.e., if the update of the graph were performed with the change that theor some ancestor nodes which have been axiomatized were TE, and thecondition C1 is equivalent to that these particular nodes have beenaxiomatized.

It is to be understood that some alternative update procedures mayachieve the same end. For example, one may only update nodes that needto be changed, after an edit, rather than starting back at the depth 0nodes.

Alternative embodiments may support somewhat different conventions yetstill provide a rating of nodes showing which have been established byvalid or not-validly challenged arguments. One may support challenges ofedges, and statement to statement edges, or not. Another alternativeconvention may demand that a depth zero node, a node with no parents, beof a certain form in order to be considered TE, for example it may berequired to contain a link to a refereed paper in a scientificliterature database. This convention would insist that all arguments begrounded in peer-reviewed publications. The update rule may be changedto accommodate such conventional changes.

An embodiment of a system may support numerous inference graphs. Anyparticular inference graph may be indexed by its Topic or Target or RootStatement, which may be a Result statement that the graph may be createdaround determining whether the statement may be rationally inferred ornot, TE or NOT-TE. A user may create a new single-node graph by enteringa Target Statement, and then users may modify the graph adding argumentsand challenges and other statements that may be connected by edges.Users may have a facility to search for existing graphs, to see if oneexists on a particular Target, or possibly on related Targets. It may bethat for many users, a primary goal will be to check a particular Targetstatement and whether it is TE. To facilitate this, it may be helpful topresent a simple display to the user. A user viewing the graph may bepresented a sub-graph focused on and isolating the Target node, fromwhich he may be readily able to determine whether the Target is TEbecause of the way it is presented, (for example if it is outlined inbold or color), and indicating which parent nodes are responsible forthe status, because an incoming TE edge may also be bold in the display,but eliding the rest of the graph if it is very complex. He may then beable to further expand the display, for example by selecting nodeswithin the existing display to be expanded, which may allow him to traceback and understand the argument establishing the status.

The system may also support a command that allows a user to select anode such as the target node and expands all nodes in the tree thatcontribute directly to the TE or NOT-TE status of that node. Wheneverthe status of a node is updated, unless it is a leaf, if it is updatedto TE there may be one or more parent nodes responsible. These may beits TE supporting argument nodes and/or TE assumption nodes. Likewise ifit is updated to NOT-TE there will be responsible parents which may beany TE challenges and/or NOT-TE assumptions or (if there are noassumptions or TE challenges), NOT-TE arguments. So the system may walkbackward through these responsible nodes, for each one adding to thedepiction its responsible parent nodes to depict a responsiblesub-graph.

In an embodiment the system may provide the user with options to:

-   -   1) For a default or selected existing graph, view simplified        sub-graphs showing the result node and responsible incoming        edges and/or parent nodes and the establishment status of these        nodes and edges,    -   2) View a hypertext based representation of a node in a graph        followed by listing of its parents and/or children, that when        the hypertext in the representation of a parent or child node is        selected (eg clicked) then displays the hypertext based        representation of that node followed by its parents and/or        children in turn, and that further indicates TE status or lack        thereof of displayed nodes.    -   3) View other representations of an existing graph or sub-graphs        of it showing TE status of nodes,    -   4) Enter a new node into a new graph,    -   5) Enter a new node into an existing graph,    -   6) Select an existing node and take an action pertaining to it        which may include        -   (a) Adding a new node connected to it by an edge of type            Challenge (of the existing node), Assumption (of it),            Argument (for the existing node), Result (of the existing            node, in which case the existing node would be an argument            for or assumption of the new node).        -   (b) Connecting said existing node to another existing node            by adding an edge, which edge may challenge the another            existing node or be challenged by it, or which may make the            existing node have an assumption of the another existing            node or make the another existing node have the existing            node its assumption, or such that the another existing node            may be an argument for the existing node, or the existing            node may be an argument for the another existing node.        -   (c) Responding to a challenge to the node by editing the            node,        -   (d) Responding to a challenge to the node by editing the            node and adding one or more nodes connected directly to it            or connected to other nodes connected to it,        -   (e) Editing the node,        -   (f) Deleting the node together with its in and out edges.            (An indicator that the result or assumption was deleted may            be made at the node the edge came from or went to,            respectively, i.e. at the nodes that the deleted node was a            result of or was an assumption of, respectively. This may            take the form of a faint or greyed out edge in a display.)            (If it has an outgoing edge to a node that it is a            sufficient argument for, as opposed to a necessary            assumption of, a different indication may or may not be            supported, depending on variations in the embodiment.)        -   (g) viewing the node and associated data and text,        -   (h) challenging the node by adding a new challenge node            connected to it by an edge.    -   7) Select an existing edge and        -   (a) Challenge it, inserting into the graph a challenge node            for the edge, or        -   (b) Replace the edge by inserting in the middle of the            existing edge an argument node having as assumption the            parent of the edge and as result the child of the edge            (where directed edges are said to point from parent to            child.)        -   (c) The embodiment illustrated in FIG. 15 and others may            combine (a) and (b), so that when an edge is Challenged (as            in (a) a dummy argument node for it is inserted in the edge            (as in (b)) as well as a challenge node directed to the            dummy argument node. See FIG. 15(b).

Associated with each node there may be

-   -   1) a document or assertion consisting of some text and possibly        associated data such as images or video and possibly one or more        links to internet or intranet cites, this may be referred to as        the “content” or the “statement” or the “argument” or the        “declaration” of the node,    -   2) a designation of how the incoming edges are combined in        performing rating updates, typically chosen from a set of        alternatives including assumption, argument, challenge, and        possibly negation, suggested edit, and/or test. The update rules        specify how the rating updates are done in terms of the status        and designation of the parent nodes.    -   3) A PL or PB Field, into which a numerical-valued Proposed        Likelihood or proposed belief may be entered. There may be one        PL field for each outward directed edge.    -   4) A rating that may be updated as to whether the node is TE,        NOT-TE or TE C, and if TE C may further compute an associated        condition or expression and may further compute a value or True        or False according as such condition is true or false under        certain circumstances    -   5) A likelihood rating that may be updated to provide an        Estimated Likelihood (EL) or Belief B for the node.    -   6) A set of outgoing edges to other nodes that the node impacts        and the designation of each edge as challenge, negation, or        result, these may be referred to as the node's “consequence” or        “child” nodes,    -   7) a set of incoming edges from other nodes that impact the node        (its “parent” nodes) and the designation of each as challenge,        negation, assumption, sufficient condition, or possibly other        classifications.    -   In some embodiment variants, there may be an “other”        designation. If other is selected an alternative update rule may        be supplied by the user. An embodiment may also support other        standard combination methods.    -   8) The nodes may have associated also a running head, which may        be another field where the user may enter text. This may be        displayed in graphical or other representations.    -   9) A node name or node number identifying the node. The node        may, for example, be indexed or referenced using this number or        name in hypertext or graphical depictions.

When a user enters or edits a node, he may enter or edit the data in oneor more of these fields, edges, designations, etc. This allows, forexample, a user to enter a node with a statement she would like toestablish, and then one or more parent nodes providing arguments for itor verifying its assumptions, and then enter parent nodes for those andparent nodes for those freely, without having to worry in the chainwhether the last was a statement or an argument. If the user sets onenode to be considered as an argument for another, it may independentlycontribute to the others TE status, but if it is considered as anassumption it's TE status may be considered as a necessary condition forthe other node's TE status. Users may be facilitated to design suchtreatment as they see fit, and to challenge nodes if they don't findtheir designations adequately justified.

FIG. 17 shows the graph of FIG. 15(c) after considerably more editing byvarious users. It indicates that these graphs may become fairly complexover time, which relates to the discussion of FIGS. 18(a), 18(b), 18(c)and 18(d).

Note that blocks 15.1, 15.9, 15.2, 15.3, 15.6, and 15.7 are stillpresent. Many other nodes have been added. Note that argument nodes(nodes with assumptions) are represented by round-edged rectangles andstatement nodes (nodes without assumptions) are represented asrectangles. (This differs from other embodiments that have beendiscussed that don't distinguish between nodes with assumptions andwithout in displaying the node representation and reserve round cornersto indicate conditional status.) Two nodes at blocks 17.12 and 17.9 havebeen represented in two different locations each, in one as an oval andin the other as a rectangle. The oval designation is used to indicatesimply an icon for another existing node inserted into the graph, forclarity and to represent drawing of an edge across the graph. In analternative representation or embodiment, these duplicate icon nodes maybe omitted and the edges drawn all the way, or color coding or someother graphical technique may be used to represent the connections. Inembodiments where icon nodes of this type are utilized, clicking on thenode or hovering over it with the mouse pointer may highlight or coloror center in the FIG. the central copy of the represented node. In FIGS.17(a), 17(b) and 17(c), the reference numbers may be considered part ofthe graph itself, the names of the nodes that may be displayed in arepresentation.

FIG. 18(a) represents simple alternative depictions which may bedisplayed to a user first viewing the graph of FIGS. 17(a), 17(b) and17(c). FIG. 18(a) shows the graph as it may be displayed to a user firstopening the graph. A target node for the graph is displayed, at block15.1, along with edges from representations of parent and child nodes.In alternative embodiments, a fuller depiction of the parent and childnodes may be drawn. A virtue of this depiction is simplicity. The usermay see instantly whether the result is or is not TE (by noting whetherit is outlined in bold or color, say). The user may see which incomingarguments establish it as TE by their bold outline. If the node was notTE, the user would see instantly whether there was an incoming boldchallenge line preventing it from being TE, and/or whether it hadassumption nodes that were not TE. (The illustration shows a nodewithout assumptions, but if it had assumptions those would also berepresented by incoming edge markers in bold or otherwise as whetherthey were TE or not, and in some embodiments incoming edges fromassumptions will be marked as such, for example with an “A”.) The graphshown may be interactive, so that selecting one of the incoming (oroutgoing) node tokens for opening, for example by clicking on the tokenwith a mouse, may cause the system to expand the token to into a fullernode representation, with its own incoming and outgoing edges. FIG.18(b) shows the graph displayed after a user has clicked on the *17.9token in FIG. 18(a). The node at block 17.9 has been expanded, showingits in and out edges, and its running head and the label, in this casethe reference number of the block (17.9) may be displayed in the FIG. inthe embodiment. In this way users may selectively open up the graph,looking only at interesting portions, for example starting at the TargetResult and seeing it is established, and then following backward to seethe argument that established it, and what its assumptions were and howthey were established. There may also be an option to remove selectednodes from the displayed portion of the graph.

For a case in which the Target Result was not established, they mayclick backwards to a bold Challenge or to a NOT-TE assumption, to expandbackward tracing the root statements that have been challenged without asatisfactory response.

Thus, in summary, FIG. 18(a) shows the first window that may bedisplayed to a new user choosing to view the graph of FIG. 17. The usermay immediately be able to determine the result is established, and thatthis was done according to node 17.9's TE status from the highlights,and if she clicks on one of the node icons in the display, the displaymay be expanded by expanding said node. FIG. 18(b) shows the displayedgraph after a click expanding node 17.9. FIG. 18(c) shows an alternativehypertext inline depiction that may be displayed of the same subgraph asin FIG. 18(a). In an alternative embodiment, this hypertext inlineversion rather than the depiction of FIG. 18(a) may be the first FIG.displayed to a new user opening the graph of FIG. 17. Or in analternative embodiment, they may be displayed side by side, in parallelframes or windows. FIG. 18(d) shows the hypertext version after the linefor 17.9 in the hypertext is clicked. The node clicked is expanded withits edges below directly below the previous data, which may scrollupward or eventually be deleted.

Another feature may be the alternative text based representation of thenodes, as represented in FIG. 18(c) FIG. 18(d), FIG. 19(a) and FIG.19(b). FIG. 18(c) shows a hyper-text based display representing thesub-graph shown in FIG. 18(a). In the hyper-text based display, the topline displayed gives summary information about a single node, in thiscase the Target node. This is followed by lines each giving summaryinformation about one of said nodes' parents and/or children. Thesequence of lines may organize the nodes by type, and also sequence themin a salient fashion.

The ordering may be customizable. The lines may themselves be hypertext,so that if a line is selected and opened (for example by clicking on itwith the mouse pointer) the summary for that node may be printed below,followed by its edges in turn. FIG. 18(d) shows what may be printedafter the second line, *17.9, in FIG. 18(c) is clicked. The line isexpanded followed by the lines for its edges. FIG. 19(a) shows that ifthe mouse pointer hovers over one of the hyperlinks, the fuller textentered into the node may be displayed, for example in a pop-up. Thepop-up window 19.1 shows the full text of the Target node 15.1 in thegraph of FIG. 17.

FIG. 19(b) shows that if a line corresponding to a node or edge isselected, for example by right-clicking, the system may make availableto the user a menu of commands. Said commands may include (among otherpossibilities):

“Edit” which may pop a window showing the data associated with the nodeand allow the user to edit the node, possibly supporting as well thecommands below so that editing may involve changing or adding in and/orout edges,Challenge which may pop a window in which the user may enter a challengeargument against the node and insert the challenge in the graph,View which may pop a window displaying the contents of the node,Delete which may delete the node from the graph along with any edges inor out,Add Assumption of which may add an assumption node to the node and allowthe user to specify if the assumption node is an existing node or elseto add new data and or text into the assumption node and to add otheredges to the assumption node,Add Argument for which may add a new incoming supportive edge and allowthe user to specify if it is from an existing node or else to add a newnode (argument or statement) and possibly other edges to or from saidnew node,Challenge Result Of which may allow the user to select a particularchild of said node and insert a challenge into the edge challengingwhether the node actually implies the child node, for example as thechallenge 15.8 in FIG. 15,Add Result to which may allow the user to add an outgoing edge toanother node in the graph, or to enter a new node and add an edge to it,About which may allow the user to pop a window showing permission andediting information and such metadata about the node,Respond which may allow the user to respond to a challenge to the node,Axiomatize which may allow the user to axiomatize the node or axiomatizeaway a challenge to the node,Display Graph which may allow the user to pop a window showing thegraphical depiction, e.g. as in FIG. 18(b) rather than FIG. 18(d), andmay also have options such as popping the full graph as in FIG. 17.

An example standard ordering may elevate or prioritize nodes of statusthat if changed, would change the status of said reference node, showingthese higher and closer to the reference node in the hyper-text display.This would facilitate searching back into the graph to find anappropriate place to modify or challenge an argument so as to change theresult. Subject to this relevance criterion, lines may be ordered bytype of edge. In the described embodiment, first incoming edges arelisted followed by outgoing edges but other conventions could be chosen.

So for a top node that is NOT-TE, if there are any NOT-TE assumptions,these may be presented first, since changing them would be critical forchanging its status, followed by TE Challenges to the node, which wouldalso need to be changed to change the status, followed by TEassumptions, TE Arguments for the node, NOT-TE Challenges to the node,NOT-TE results of the node (which may be made TE if the node were madeTE), and TE results of the node, followed by challenges by the node ofTE nodes, followed by challenges by the node of nodes that are not TE.For a top node that is TE this embodiment would prioritize assumptionsthat are TE (changing them would change its status), followed bychallenges that are not TE, followed by arguments that are TE, argumentsthat aren't TE, and then followed by outgoing edges: Results that aren'tTE, Results that are TE, Nodes the node is challenging that aren't TE.Other standard orders could be chosen. The ordering could becustomizable by the user.

An alternative embodiment may always prioritize in a fixed order such asfrom highest to lowest: assumption, argument, challenge of, result,challenge to another node, and then within each category prioritize TEfirst followed by TE C followed by NOT-TE. An embodiment may furtherprioritize by EL, if it updates an EL for the nodes.

The hypertext based graph viewer may print a line describing aparticular node of the graph first, followed by lines describing itsneighbors in a prescribed order and indentation. The lines themselvesmay be hypertexts, and when one is clicked or otherwise selected foropening, the hypertext based graph viewer may print a line describingthat node followed by lines describing its neighbors. Thus one mayexplore the graph by a series of clicks. The lines may contain anddisplay a number or name for the node, and/or a running head, and/or anabbreviation of the nature of the link (such as: Cha for challenge of,Ass for Assumption of, Arg for Argument for, OCh for (outgoing)challenge by the node of another, Res for result). The lines may alsodisplay an EL value of one is computed. They may also indicate by boldface and/or color and/or stars or prominent icon, whether a node is TEor not. They may also have hypertext giving the condition of nodes thatare TE C.

Nodes that are TE C may have a condition depending logically on a numberof axiomatized nodes, and a description may be given as generated by theupdate rule in terms of formula over the names of axiomatized nodes. Thenames may be hyperlinked to the nodes, so that users may readily exploredown into the nature of the axiomatizations. Clicking on a name, theviewer may print the associated axiomatized node.

If the hypertexts are selected in another way, for example with arightclick, a menu of editing options may be provided to modify thegraph as it pertains to the referenced node or its neighbors, asillustrated in FIG. 19(b). If the hypertext for a line is selected inanother way, such as hovering the mouse pointer over it, it may displayor pop a more extensive window showing its contents as illustrated inFIG. 19(a).

The first line displayed may give a running head of the Result or Targetnode for the graph. It is marked in the illustration with a highlight(*) and in bold to make clear it is a TE node. Its number, name, ordesignation (in this case 15.1) may be given. In embodiments where an ELis computed, the EL may be displayed. Below this node the nodes it hasedges to may be printed. Each hypertext line may similarly give anabbreviation of the connection type, a * and bold for TE, a runninghead, an EL FIG., its condition if it is TE C, and possibly other thingssuch as if the edge itself is challenged, the identifier and informationof the challenge node.

In an alternative embodiment, nodes may be of the following types:

-   -   1. Statement    -   2. Conditional    -   3. Citation    -   4. Suggested Edit    -   5. Virtual Argument    -   6. Test    -   7. Negation

Each of these may be represented on the graph by a particular icon. Forexample, the statement may be represented by a rectangle, theconditional by a round edged rectangle, a citation by a small star, asuggested edit by a scalloped-edge cloud shape, a virtual argument by acircle with a “?” on it inserted in the middle of an edge so the edgepoints into the circle and then out of it to its destination, and a testnode may be represented by a rectangle like another statement, butrecognizable by its outgoing test edge, which may be iconically colored,say blue. A negation node may be represented by an icon of the same typeas the node it is a negation of, or simply by a rectangle, but it may berecognizable by the double-ended arrow negation edge into the node it isa negation of. A negation node when added may automatically be givenRunning head NOT:“X” where X is the running head of the node it is anegation of. For example a node whose running head was “Cows are brown”would have a negation whose running head may be: NOT: Cows are brown.This running head may be automatically inserted by the system when thenegation is created. Likewise the negation may have an automaticallyentered Declaration which is NOT:“Declarationl” where by “Declarationl”it is meant the contents or text of the Declaration of the node of whichit is the negation.

A conditional node may be otherwise identical to a Statement node,except that conditional node has incoming assumption edges, and may berepresented with a different icon. In an alternative embodimentconditional nodes may simply be represented exactly as Statement nodes,or may be replaced with statement nodes. In this case the existence ofassumptions may be clear to the users because the assumption edges aremarked in a different color, such as light blue. A citation node mayrepresent some citation into the outside literature or some externalsource. It may have an outgoing argument edge into one or moreStatement, virtual argument, suggested edit, test or conditional nodes.A node it's connected to may state in its declaration what particulardeclaration the citation is being taken as supporting. A suggested editnode may be connected by a suggested edit edge to a node it issuggesting a change in. A test node may be connected by a test edge to anode it is assaying, called its subject or child node. In mostembodiments neither test edges nor suggested edit edges will affect orbe considered in the rating update process, although test edges may beused in the belief update process. A virtual argument node may beinserted automatically in an edge when the edge is challenged, so thatthe incoming challenge edge has a node to point to. When the virtualargument node is edited to insert a declaration, it may be converted toa normal argument node.

A node may have:

-   -   1. Identifier typically automatically generated as next node        number available or in some embodiments the identifier of the        form graphname.nodenumber can be used to refer to it from within        other graphs).    -   2. Running head (may have character limit).    -   3. Declaration (a editable and viewable file that will typically        support hypertext and images)    -   4. metadata (such as last edited, last edited by, owner, . . . )    -   5. List of Assumptions (if any)    -   6. List of Arguments (if any)    -   7. List of incoming Challenges (if any)    -   8. List of Results (if any) (i.e., outgoing Argument edges)    -   9. List of outgoing Challenge edges (if any)    -   10. List of incoming test edges    -   11. List of outgoing test edges    -   12. Whether it has a negation    -   13. Rating (automatically updated, as detailed below)    -   14. Belief B, (automatically updated as detailed below)    -   15. Proposed Belief PB (field entered by user, default 1.0 if        not entered.)    -   16. Expected Likelihood (field entered by user, if node has        outgoing assay edge).    -   17. Node type    -   18. Edit history (saved and viewable by users).    -   19. A number of complaints that it is Frivolous, and a number of        votes that it is Interesting (this may only be kept for        challenges or responses after the issue is raised by challenger        or responder).    -   20. A number of likes and a number of dislikes.    -   21. An axiomatization status. By default this may be “NOT        Axiomatized”, but some users may have the ability to launch a        duplicate graph except with a node set to “Axiomatized True” and        users may also have the ability to generate a display of the        graph that would result if some set of nodes axiomatization        status were set.    -   22. A page of comments, like you might find at the bottom of a        blog post, which a class of users may add to.    -   23. A user dependent display status, determining whether this        node is displayed when the user views the graph. The default may        be to only show certain nodes, e.g. the topic node and some        neighbors. The user may be able to click on nodes and expand        their neighbors, toggling this status at the neighbors. Users        may also have access to commands allowing toggling classes of        nodes, e.g. whether NOT-TE nodes are displayed or not.

Edge Types may include:

-   -   1. Challenge    -   2. Responded-to-Challenge    -   3. Negation    -   4. Argument    -   5. Assumption    -   6. Suggested Edit    -   7. Test

An edge may have:

-   -   1. A type (Argument, Assumption, etc. as above)    -   2. A TE status (taken from the TE status of its parent).    -   3. A parent (which it is from) and a child (which it points to).    -   4. One or more owners, who created it, can delete it, and/or may        own the virtual argument node if the edge is challenged.    -   5. Edges of a given type may have a given iconic representation.        For example, challenges may be represented by a red arrow,        responded-to challenges by a pale and/or dashed red arrow,        negation edges by a bi-directed red arrow (with an arrowhead        pointing each way), arguments by a black arrow, Assumptions by a        blue arrow, Tests by a purple arrow, Suggested edits by a brown        arrow.

In some embodiments each node may have a quantity computed for it called“Belief” and designate B, which may correspond to an estimate for thelikelihood the node's declaration is true.

A node may also specify a Proposed Belief or PB. If users do not specifya different value, the default PB for every node may be 1.

Tests (or sometimes called Assays) are another edge type. They aredirected from a Test node to any other node that may be called itstarget.

In some embodiments, when the test edges are included, the graph mayinclude cycles, or in others cycles may not be permitted. The test nodemay propose a likelihood its target node's declaration is true. This maybe designated P(1|A), the likelihood the node has a 1 given the test A.This may be called the Likelihood Estimate LE of the test node. This maysimply be a user-entered number associated with the test edge and/ornode.

The Likelihood Estimate may represent to users the probability someobserved test results would be observed if the declaration was truedivided by the sum of the probability said observed test results wouldbe observed if the declaration was true Plus the probability that saidobserved test results would be observed if the target declaration failedto hold. (Other users may choose to challenge the Test node, for exampleif they propose some argument why the entered Likelihood estimate doesnot accurately represent this quantity.) In some embodiments a loglikelihood may be used instead. It may be a user-entered number, in someembodiments modified by the application of a logarithm or otherfunction. In any case it may be a number entered by a user that mayenter into the computation of the Beliefs of nodes as described below.

The test node T may itself have a B(T) which estimates the belief thenode T itself is true. The test edge does not affect ratings of nodes,or the calculations of depth of nodes used for sequencing ratingupdates. Its only use may be for computing Beliefs of nodes. Other edgesthan a single test edge outgoing from a test node may be disallowed insome embodiments.

A belief B may be computed for each of the nodes in the graph by thefollowing Monte Carlo algorithm.

The following is repeated enough times until it is satisfied that enoughdata points has been collected for statistical accuracy that is desired.In practice, it may be repeated a number of times, and then the currentresults are displayed to the users, and then repeating is continued moretimes to refine the estimate in background, updating the displayednumbers from time to time until a satisfactory accuracy has beenachieved.

An update of the graph may be performed as follows that assigns a valueof 0 or 1 to each node and a weight W to the total configuration orexample. For each Edepth-0 node, the system assigns it a 0 or a 1according to its PB. With probability PB the system assigns it a 1 andwith probability 1−PB the system assigns it a 0. Then updating asfollows is continued throughout the graph in E-depth order. A node willbe updated to 1 if it would be TE if all of its 1 parents were TE andall of its 0 parents were NOT-TE. Conversely it will be updated to 0 ifit would be NOT-TE under the same substitution. So if it has any value 1challenges, or value 0 assumptions, or if it has one or more value 0arguments but no value 1 argument, then it will be updated to value 0.And otherwise it will be updated to value 1. Then, after that step, ifthe node has a PB different from 1, you randomize further and withlikelihood 1−PB you set the value to 0, even if the above step madeit 1. A node that is axiomatized, is assigned 1 with likelihood its PBand 0 with likelihood 1−PB, determining the protocol so axiomatizationrepresents defining the node to be true as entered by the user,including the users assignment of intrinsic probability, unless it isone of a set of n-choice nodes. In the latter case, the axiomatized nodeis set to 1 and the other alternatives to 0 (defining the protocol so asto have axiomatization represent assuming that choice and not theothers.)

After running through the whole graph assigning 0's and 1's in this waya single configuration is created. The next step is to assign a weightto this configuration. This is done by multiplying together the LE foreach test edge from a test with a 1 value to a node with a 1 value, andmultiplying together by (1−LE) for each test edge from a test with a 1value to a node with a 0 value, and multiplying by ½ for every Test edgefrom a Test with 0 value independent of the target value. The product ofthese terms is the weight W of the configuration, or example.

At each node two quantities W1 and W0 are maintained and updated. W0 isthe total weight of configurations having a 0 at this node. W1 is thetotal weight of configurations having a 1 at this node. B at the node isupdated as W1/(W0+W1)

The B's for nodes may be displayed on the node, for example in the lowerleft hand corner, or there may be an option to have the boundaries ofeach node be proportional in thickness and or darkness to its Belief.

An example of this procedure is illustrated at FIGS. 22(a) and (b),representing screen shots of a simple graph containing a Topic node n0with running head and declaration “There is milk in John's Fridge rightnow.” The running head of node n0 is displayed by the system in theyellow popup window in FIG. 22(b) in response to the mouse hovering overthe node. (Mouse pointer not shown in screenshot.) This window alsoshows the nodes rating (TE), its PB 1 and its Belief (computed by thesystem) 0.75. The user did not enter a PB for the node, so its defaultvalue is 1.0. An argument node n1 with running head and declaration “9days out of 10, John brings milk home with him on his way back fromwork” has a PB 0.9 (PB not shown). A test node with running head “Backto store” and a declaration “John is currently back at the store, havingdriven back after going home. The likelihood John would drive back tothe store if he has no milk in his fridge is 0.8. The likelihood Johnwould drive back to the store if he didn't forget milk is 0.1” Thisdeclaration is shown in FIG. 22(a) in response to the mouse pointerhovering over node n2, as is the nodes rating (TE), PB (0.7) LE=0.111and Belief, computed by the system, 0.47. The Likelihood Estimate ofthis node is 0.111 (which was entered by a user and may represent0.1/(0.8+0.1). (An alternative embodiment may support users to enterother information from which an LE is automatically computed, such asallowing users to enter a number LE1 to represent the likelihood of thetest given the subject true, and a number LE0 to represent thelikelihood of the test given the subject false, and then the system mayautomatically compute LE=LE1/(LE1+LE0).)

The PB of this node, which was entered by a user, is 0.7. This may, forexample, represent the user's estimate that there is a 70% chance Johnwent back to the store. There is a 30% chance he was mistaken aboutthat, and he has no idea where John went.

The B values for the nodes in FIGS. 22(a) and 22(b) may be computed bythe Monte Carlo process and updated by the system. Monte Carlo instancesmay be generated as described above as follows. Each instance will havea value for each node in the graph. For the first instance the systemchooses a 1 or a 0 for n1 with likelihood 0.9 of being 1 and 0.1 ofbeing 0, since n1 has a PB of 0.9. cf block 21.12. A 1 or 0 is chosenfor n2 with likelihood 0.7 of being 1 and 0.3 of being 0, (again cfblock 21.12 and because n2 has PB of 0.7) n0 is set to 1 if a 1 existsfor n1 and a 0 otherwise, because its PB is 1.0. A weight is thencomputed for this instance which is 0.111 if the instance value foundfor n0 was a 1 and the instance value found for n2 was a 1, and is 0.889if the instance value found for n0 was a 0 and the instance value foundfor n2 was a 1 and which is otherwise ½.

There are thus the following possibilities:

n1: 1, n0: 1, n2: 1, weight: .111 n1: 1, n0: 1 n2: 0 weight: .5 n1: 0,n0: 0, n2: 1 weight: .889 n1: 0, n0: 0, n2: 0 weight: .5

The first of these may be generated about 0.9*.7 of the time. The secondmay be generated about 0.9*.3 of the time. The third may be generatedabout 0.1*.7 of the time. The fourth may be generated about 0.1*.3 ofthe time. Thus the expected increase in W1 per MC instance is0.204=(0.9*.7*.111+0.9*.3*.5) And the expected increase in W0 per MCinstance, representing the total weight of instances seen having node n0be 0 is 0.077=0.1*.7*.889+0.1*.3*.5) W0+W1=the expected weight of aninstance is 0.282. And the Belief estimated for Node 0 will tend to0.723.

Note that the Monte Carlo estimate thus may tend to the likelihood onewould compute for finding the n0 node in the 1 position given one wastold its value was generated by the process of a cause giving likelihood0.9 of making it 1, and a test which was known to be 70% reliable andwhich resulted in a value predicting that the likelihood the node was instate 1 was 0.111.

Likewise the belief in node 1 is the same 0.723. The belief in node 2has expected value per instance of0.468=(0.9*.7*.111+0.1*.7*.889)/0.282.

Note that the Belief the system shows for n2 (FIG. 22 a, 0.47) and thebelief the system shows for n0 (FIG. 22 b, 0.75) are close to thetheoretical values but not exactly spot on. This is because the systemillustrated was using only a small number of Monte Carlo examples in itscalculation so there is some random variation. More accurate (butslightly slower) valuations may be provided by using more examples inthe algorithm.

Note that the result makes intuitive sense. The Test n2 says, because heprobably went back to store, he probably forgot milk. The argument n1says, he probably got milk. The computed result for whether he did ornot, is in the middle. Also, the node n2, which was accorded only 70%chance of being correct in the first place, is estimated at only 47%likely. The fact its result contradicts the argument makes it morelikely to be mistaken in this case. Similarly, the belief the argumentis valid dropped from its proposed 0.9 to 0.75 because it wascontradicted by the Test result.

One may see that the algorithm given for generating instances willgenerate only certain instances, and it generates them with a certainlikelihood. It thus may define a probability distribution over thosestates of the system that may arise under the probability model and maysample proportionally to its probability under this distribution. TheBelief assigned to a node then converges to the sum over all statesaccessible to the system for which that node is assigned a 1, orconsidered true, according to their probability.

A second example graph is illustrated in FIG. 23. There are now two testnodes, n2 and n3, and one argument node n1, which challenges n2 andsupports n3. n0 has a PB of 1. n1 has a PB of 0.9. n2 has a LE of 0.95and a PB of 0.8. n3 Has a LE of 0.3 and a PB of 0.75 So there are thefollowing possible MC instances and weights.

n1 n0 n2 n3 weight probability expected weight 1 1 0 1 .3 * .5 .9*.75.10125 1 1 0 0 .5 * .5 .9*.25 .05625 0 0 1 0 .05* .5  .1*.8  .00200 0 00 0 .5 * .5 .1*.2  .00500 .16450

where the probability gives the expected fraction of instances the MonteCarlo is likely to generate of the corresponding type, and the weight isthe weight given to the instances, the expected weight column is theproduct of the previous two, and the last row on it is the sum of theexpected weight of any kind of example. The 0.9 probability representsthe draw of the value for 1. Then the value for n0 is determined,because its PB is 1. The value of n2 will be determined to be 0 if n1was a 1. If n1 was a 0, then n2 will be 1 with probability its PB and 0with probability 1− its PB or 0.2. If n1 was a 1 then n2 will be 0because it is challenged by a 1 node. If n1 is a 1, then n3 will be 1with probability its PB or 0.75, and a 0 with probability 0.25. Theweight reflects the LE's assigned to the edges of the instances. Forexample, the 0.05*.5 weight of the third row is the product of (1−LE)for n2 and for n3. The total expected weight is 0.16450. The B computedfor n0 will tend to the sum of the weights of the rows with n0=1 dividedby 0.1645 or (0.10125+0.05625)/0.1645=0.95744. This is also the B forn1. The B for n2 may tend to 0.002/0.1645=0.01215 And the B for n3 maytend to 0.10125/0.1645=0.61550.

In the system to make the FIG. transparent, the values for PB and LEhave been entered not only into their fields in the respective nodes,but also written them into the running head so they would be visible onthe diagram. The mouse over node n2 induces the system to display theyellow bubble showing the systems calculation of Belief for n2 yields0.01.

The Belief update procedure may be further understood with reference toFIGS. 21(a)-21(f). FIG. 21(a) shows the update procedure at the toplevel. The system first initiates two variables, W0 and a W1 at eachnode in the graph, to all initially start at 0 at block 21.1.

Then in block 21.16 the system starts asking whether enough Monte Carloexamples have been evaluated that the likelihoods have converged enough.Initially, the answer will be NO, as none have been evaluated, so thesystem will go to block 21.17. An embodiment of the system may usevarious criteria for deciding if enough examples have been evaluated.One criterion may be if a certain number of examples have beenevaluated, like 100. An alternative criterion may be to evaluate theBelief for all the nodes by the equation in block 21.20 after a certainnumber of examples have been evaluated, like 50, and then again everytime 50 more examples have been evaluated, and to cease evaluation whenthe largest change in belief at any node over the last 50 is less than0.01. Other criteria may also be used. When enough examples have beengenerated, then block 21.20 sets the belief at each node in terms of itsW1 and W0.

In block 21.17, a new Monte Carlo Example is generated by the process ofFIG. 21(b). An example will consist of an assignment of a value 0 or 1to each node in the graph. All the nodes in the graph have beenpreviously sorted by order of their EDepth. Recall the EDepth of eachnode is defined to be the length of the longest path through the graphending at the node following edge direction, going over at most onedirection of a negation or n-choice edge, and not using assay (test) orsuggested edit edges. In FIG. 21(b), the nodes are processed in order ofincreasing E-Depth, and for each it is updated using the process of FIG.21(c), generating a value of 0 or 1 for the node. When all nodes havebeen so updated, the example is constructed.

In FIG. 21(c), a node is updated by first asking at block 12.3 if it isan n-choice node (assuming the embodiment supports those.) If yes, atblock 21.3 a value is generated for it and its partners by using FIG.21(d). If not, at block 21.4 a value is generated for it by using FIG.21(e).

In FIG. 21(d) for n-choice nodes, the system first asks if any of thepartners are axiomatized at block 21.5. If yes, then at block 21.6, avalue 1 is generated for the axiomatized node and 0 for the partners. Ifno, at block 21.7, the system first generates a temporary value Ui foreach partner i as if the others didn't exist. That is, the systempretends for each of the partners, that it wasn't a partner and didn'thave n-choice or negation edges to the other partners, and generate atemporary or placeholder value for it as would be performed according toFIG. 21(e). For alternative i, the value generated this way is calledUi.

After generating the Ui, final values are assigned to each of thealternatives as follows. If one Ui is 1 and the rest 0, then the systemgenerates final value 1 for node i, and final value 0 for the otherpartners. If two or more temporary values are 1 and the rest 0, thesystem selects one of the 1 valued partners at random, and generatefinal value 1 for it and 0 for all others. If all Ui are 0, then thesystem generates a 0 as final value for all the alternatives (or in analternative embodiment, the system may pick one at random to be 1 andthe rest 0.) These final values get added to the example underconstruction, and the construction of the example proceeds in block 21.2if there are other nodes yet to assign values in the example, or inblock 21.6 if the example is complete after the n-choice nodes areassigned values.

FIG. 21(e) explains how a value of 0 or 1 is assigned to a node that isnot an n-choice node (and how the temporary values are generated forn-choice nodes). The system first asks at block 21.8 if the node isaxiomatized. (If the node is an n-choice node, the answer will be nosince this case was handled in at block 21.6, so at block 21.9 is notappropriate for them.) If the node is axiomatized, at block 21.9, thevalue 1 is generated for the node with probability PB of the node, elsethe value 0 is generated. This may be sensible because theaxiomatization of a node assumes the node is valid, and the PB may be astated probability that holds when the node may be valid. Thisformulation supports users to declare and assume probabilistic nodes. Analternative embodiment could instead replace at block 21.9 with anassignment of 1 to the axiomatized node. In block 21.6 for n-choicenodes, a value of 1 was used for the axiomatized node because n-choicenodes may be interpreted by users who choose to as inherently callingfor 1 of them to be on. An alternative embodiment could generate a 1according to the formulation of block 21.9 for n-choice nodes with astated PB not equal 1.

If the node is not axiomatized, at block 21.10, the system next asks ifit has a challenge from a value 1 node, or an assumption edge from avalue 0 node, or if it has arguments, but all are from value 0 nodes. Ifany of these are true, at block 21.11, the value 0 is generated for thenode. Otherwise, at block 21.12, the value 1 is generated for the nodewith probability PB of the node, else its value is set to 0.

A Monte Carlo Example is complete after the system generates a value foreach node in the graph using FIG. 21(b) and FIG. 21(c), and then (d)and/or (e). Then the system returns to block 21.19, in FIG. 21(a), andgenerate a weight for the example 21.19 using the method of FIG. 21(f).The weight for an example is initiated at 1 at block 21.13. Then thesystem multiplies it by the LE of each Test Edge from a Test Node withvalue 1 in the example to a target node with value 1 in the example atblock 21.14. Then the system multiplies it by (1−LE) of each Test Edgefrom a Test Node with value 1 in the example to a target node with value0 in the example at block 21.15. Then the system multiplies it by ½ foreach Test Edge from a Test Node with value 0, independent of the valueof the target node at block 21.18. This generates the weight of theexample at block 21.19. Then the system returns to block 21.21. In block21.21 the system runs through all the nodes in the graph and update foreach an associated number w1 or w0. For each node which has value 1 inthe example, the system adds the weight of the example to its w1. Foreach node which has value 0 in the example, the system adds the weightof the example to its w0. Then the system returns to block 21.16 anddetermines if the system has enough examples yet. If the answer is yes,then the system sets the belief at each respective node in the graph tobe its respective value for w1/(w1+w0) at block 21.20. Supportingaxiomatization as discussed axiomatizes the PB of a node as itslikelihood. At the same time, users may be able to infer which othernodes this axiomatization is affecting by which other nodes TE status isconditional on this axiomatization variable. The embodiment may supportboth personal and shared axiomatizations by Users. Users in oneembodiment may right-click on a node and select “Axiomatize” from a dropdown menu. When they do that they are offered to set an axiomatized PBfor the node that will be used for generating MC examples as above.These axiomatizations may, however, only affect the local display thatthey see, not what is seen by others. This allows users to considervarious options of axiomatization and probabilistic estimates, and seethe results.

Axiomatizations may become global, that is saved into a shared graph, ifthe user shares the graph. This may require a different level ofuser-privilege.

In an alternative embodiment, instead of evaluating the beliefs of thenodes by this Monte Carlo procedure, one could replace the randomizedselection of examples by an exhaustive generation of all examples thathave non-zero probability according to the Monte Carlo process. This isstraightforward to do by replacing the random choices in at blocks 21.9and 21.12 and 21.7 by a sequential search over the alternatives. Foreach such example exhaustively generated the system may compute anassociated probability with which the MC process would generate it. Thisis straightforward because it gets a factor PB or (1−PB) for each nodeat which such a choice is made depending on which choice (1 or 0respectively). It also gets a weight as before from FIG. 21(f). Eachexample is then weighted by the product of the weight and itsprobability. For graphs with no more than 10 or so depth 0 nodes thathave PB not equal to 1, this alternative may be faster and more precise.

Another feature of an embodiment is a stylized display that allows usersto rapidly understand the graphs.

In particular, graphs may be created around a topic declaration, that itmay be desired or proposed to prove or disprove. After the topicsentence is added to start the graph, arguments, assumptions,challenges, and other nodes may be added to it, and then others added tothem and so on. For example if a user right-clicks the mouse button on adisplayed node, the system may drop a menu allowing the user to selectthe kind of node to attach, and then provide a window to enter therelevant information into the new node. The display may attach nodes ina stylized way, with assumption nodes below and argument nodes below anode,

With assumption nodes to the left of argument nodes for the same node,challenge edges running right to left and above the argument edges forthe node, test edges running left to right. Edges of a given type maytend to be displayed pointing in a particular direction. In anotherembodiment, argument edges tend to be drawn up and to the left,assumption edges up and to the right, challenge edges from right toleft, and assay edges from left to right. This yields a fixedrepresentation to which users may become accustomed.

In an alternative embodiment the nodes may be regarded as belonging totwo opposing teams PRO and CON. In some embodiments with Pro's edges(whether argument, assumption or challenge) may be drawn mostly verticaland Con's edges whether argument assumption or challenge, may be drawnmostly right to left, argument going vertical and challenge going rightto left. A node with multiple edges may have a primary edge which may beuser designated or else may be the node it was added to the graph with.In the current embodiment it is by default the edge it was added to thegraph with. Nodes that are Pro may be displayed shaded in one color, sayblue, and nodes that re Con may be displayed in another color, say red.The system may maintain permissions so that certain users are able toedit Pro nodes and certain users are able to edit Con nodes.

An edge may be classified as Pro if it is an argument or assumption fora Pro node or if it is a challenge for a Con node. An edge may beclassified as Con if it is an argument or assumption for a Con node or achallenge for a Pro node.

A node may be classified as Pro if it is the topic sentence or if it'sprimary edge is Pro. A node may be classified as Con if it is theNegation of the Topic or if its primary edge is Con. By drawing the Conedges horizontal and the Pro edges vertical the system may facilitaterapid analysis by users.

In an alternative embodiment, permissions may be handled as follows.Each node has one or more owners, including the creator, but he may bepart of a team or class of individuals empowered to edit the node andrespond to challenges, the creator's team. Team debates are supported inwhich members of one team argue for one side, having editing privilegeson nodes controlled by that side, but having the ability to issuechallenges to nodes controlled by the other side. Suggested edits may beposted at nodes, in one embodiment as comments on a comment stream. Inan alternative embodiment suggested edits may be posted as a suggestededit node, with a suggested edit edge pointing to the node the edit issuggested for. In either case there may be like/dislike buttonsassociated with suggested edits that are enabled only for team members,so that the votes of team members may be counted.

The owners of a node can edit it and respond to challenges to it. A wideclass of users called “Authors” may challenge any node or add edges toany node or add new nodes connected by an edge. In some embodiments onlythe owner of a node may add assumptions to it, but Authors may addarguments for it or claim it challenges another node or add its negationto the graph. Adding the negation node to the graph may add a node thathas running head “NOT:X” where X is the running head of the first node,and that has declaration: “NOT:Y” where Y is the declaration of thefirst node. The “NOT” should be in very bold letters. The running headand declaration of either node may not be edited without removing theNegation edge. The owner of the negation node by default may be itscreator (the author who added it to the graph). In an alternativeembodiment the owner of the negation node may be the owner of the node,as both may be changed together in lockstep.

When a node is challenged, the owner of the node may respond to thechallenge by editing the node and indicating the challenge has beenresponded to (e.g. by using a “Responded to Challenge” button that maybe made available to him during the edit.) This may have the effect oftransforming the challenge edge into a “responded-to challenge” edge. Hemay also be able to flag the challenge node as frivolous, which maylaunch frivolous/legit buttons below the challenge node allowing usersto vote and the current vote to be read. (Doing so, flagging the node,may also display an ARE YOU SURE accompanied by a warning such as onethat: “a claim of frivolity is an assertion of deliberate misconduct,and that frivolous assertions of misconduct are themselves misconductpunishable by disbarment. A challenge is considered frivolous only ifthe intent of the user is to obfuscate rather than clarify.”) The ownerof the challenge node may then be able to edit his challenge, in whichcase he may have the opportunity to turn the edge back into a challengeedge. He may at that time flag the response as frivolous, which maygenerate a similar message but if accepted by the user, launchfrivolous/legit buttons below the responding node.

In an alternative embodiment, the owner of a node may edit it inresponse to a challenge, and then issue a challenge to the challengesaying it had been responded to. The response node may includeautomatically a track-marked copy (or a link to such a copy) of thechallenged node, showing the response, if any. If the response includedaddition of or modification of supporting nodes (such as arguments orassumptions) the response node may include a list of links to or namesof the added nodes.

There may also be possible to add a special kind of challenge called afrivolous flag or simply a flag node. A flag node may come with a votebutton, that solicits opinion from users as to whether the node wasfrivolous. The use of frivolous flags on public (or otherwise) graphsmay be noted, and users found to employ flags too frequently or whenthey are not supported later by votes or when moderators determine theyare frivolous, may be excluded. Users who post nodes that are deemedfrivolous may be excluded. A Flag node may be treated as automaticallyaxiomatized if it is sustained by a vote and challenged, and thepriority displayed version of a topic (if user does not select anotherone) may be the version with sustained challenged flag nodesaxiomatized.

A class of users called “Initiators” may be able to launch new graphs byentering a new topic node. There may be 2 subclasses of Initiators,those who can edit the topic node after the graph has been launched andedited further by others, and those who can't. In an embodiment,Initiators own the topic node like any other node's owner and can editit. The website may also enable user-initiated publicly debated topicswhere the topic is frozen, or at least requires approval of moderator toedit. Also enabled may be user-initiated topics where the topic node maybe refined just like any other.

The present disclosure has the philosophy: participants are working todiscover what may be established, and therefore should be enabled torefine the topic declaration just as any other node, so they are. Aclass of users called “Super-Initiators” may be able to launch newgraphs by entering a new topic node, and restrict who can edit thegraph, and who can view it. (Part of a business plan may be to sellaccess to different classes of privilege for varying amounts. Theability to keep the graph private to your selected viewers may allowenterprises, for example, to use the system for planning.)

A class of users called “Forkers” may axiomatize nodes. This may launchanother graph identical to the one the operation is performed on,including ownerships and axiomatizations of the nodes, except with thenode specified being axiomatized as specified. That means its status isfixed in this graph to TE (or in some embodiments maybe NOT-TE) as perthe axiomatization. When a renewed challenge is flagged as frivolous,the axiomatized graph with the challenge axiomatized as false may becomethe default graph displayed to users. When a response is flagged asfrivolous, the axiomatized graph with the challenge axiomatized as truemay become the default graph.

Users who enter the system may see a searchable list of existing topics.A given topic may exist in several prioritized axiomatizations. Thehighest priority graph, displayed by default, may be the one with onlynodes labelled as frivolous axiomatized, and these nodes that areaxiomatized and frivolous only optionally displayed. (There may be anavailable display of what other axiomatizations are available. Topicsmay be organized in some form of ontological hierarchy with the leastimportant bits indexing the branching axiomatization, or simple linearalphabetic, by topic, but then with the topics further expandable todrop down variants listing axiomatizations.) The designation may be madeby a super-user of some class. For high visibility public graphs it maybe made by a moderator with the aid of the vote and request from theauthor flagging the challenge or response. This moderator may moregenerally be the initiator or super-initiator who created the graph. Abroader class of Forkers may be able to create a forked graph with anode axiomatized, without however making it the default graph for thetopic. Indeed, most users may have this power. In this case people mayvote with their feet for an alternative axiomatization. The most popularor most recently edited axiomatization may be presented at or near thetop of the prioritized list of available axiomatizations for a graph.

Users who wish to change a node's Declaration or running head but don'thave privilege to edit it and don't wish to dispute its TE status in theinterim by Challenging may add a “Suggested Edit” Node to it. This willbe ignored by the Rating status update. Suggested edits may be acceptedor partially accepted or declined or challenged by the owner. If theedit is accepted or partially accepted, the node owner may retain oralso transfer ownership of the edited node. To promote the flow of ideasin public graphs, the default may be set that if no response of any ofthe above types happens for some period of time, the edit will beautomatically made if the edit node has more likes than not. (Owners ofsufficient privilege may be able to set a flag on some or all of theirnodes so that such automatic edits are not done.)

Users who wish to insist on an edit if their edit is declined, orpartially accepted, may challenge the node if they can supply aDeclaration stating why it is wrong (one not containing such aDeclaration could be entered into the system by a malicious user butwould be frivolous) and may also create a parallel node having theiredit. (Authors may generally challenge nodes, and may generally add newnodes, so this combination is available to them without botheringsuggesting an edit first. However suggesting an edit first may beconsidered good style at least when you don't think the Declaration iswrong (as opposed to improvable)).

Authors whose edits are declined or partially accepted, may be presenteda button to create a duplicate node comprising their edit. Such a nodemay come with frivolous/legit vote button. If there are multiple nodeswith identical in and out edges, except for incoming challenge edges,that are thus different versions of the same node, (one or more versionsbeing challenged) these may be displayed as if above one another in somedimension at a location, with the edges to a given target fusing, or asa multi-node that can be expanded to show detailed structure.

In some embodiments there may also be a provision for users to commenton the nodes by clicking a comment button, which will allow them toenter a comment pertaining to the node or to previous comments on thenode. The comments may typically be visible at the bottom of the node'sview page. The comments may be extendable into graphs by addingchallenges or arguments for the comments, recursively so that achallenge to a comment, which may be a comment below it of typechallenge, could itself have replies that may be challenges orarguments. Below a comment on the view page, there may be a button“Support” and a button “Challenge” which may when clicked open a windowin which a user may enter a comment of the corresponding type. Thestatus of comments in the comment string may then be maintainedaccording to whether it is TE or NOT-TE, depending on whether it isvalidly challenged and/or supported by other established replies of typechallenge or support respectively. Each comment's status as well as itstype may be visible in the boldness of the top level name for thecomment. That is, instead of the comments having a reply button, thecomments have a challenge button and a support button, with separateicons, and the boldness of the header or the icon at the beginning of aresponse in the display indicates whether that response or comment is TEin the comment board.

FIG. 26 depicts the VIEW window 26.1 of the node N19 in FIG. 20. Thesystem may display this if node N19 is rightclicked and the VIEW optionis selected from the VIEW dropdown menu, dropdown2. 26.2 shows the Heador Running Head. 26.3 shows the Declaration. This may include FIGs. andimages and video. It may be intended as the declaration the node ismaking and establishing. 26.11 shows the node designation. 26.12 showsthe rating of the node, which may be TE C False with conditionNOT(T_N24). 26.13 shows the Proposed belief PB which may have beenentered by a user or set to 1.0 by default because a user chose not toenter a PB, and the Belief may have been calculated as 0.0 and displayedas B. 26.4 shows there may be a comment section supported at the bottom.The comment section may be unusual in having multiple comment buttons,26.6 Support and 26.7 Challenge. A user clicking Support may get awindow to enter a supporting argument and a user clicking challenge mayget a window to enter a challenge argument. 26.5 is a support argumentthat has been entered for the node. It has been designated S1 as firstsupport argument. 26.8 shows a support argument that has been enteredfor 26.5. It has been designated S1S1 as first support argument for S1.If there was a second it may be S1S2. 26.9 shows a challenge that hasbeen entered for 26.8 C1S1S1, the first challenge of S1S1. 26.10 shows achallenge entered to 26.9 using its challenge button 26.7. 26.10 isshown in bold because it is considered TE by 6.4 because it is Edepth0in the comment graph, it has no challenge or argument itself. Then 26.9is shown as not in bold because it is NOT TE according to 6.6 it has aTE challenge. Then 26.8 and 26.5 are shown in bold because they are TEaccording to 6.10 and 6.12 respectively because they have respectivelyno argument (nor TE challenge) and a TE argument (and no TE challenge).

A rebuttal may be considered invalid if it has been validly rebutted andvalid if it hasn't. The system may check for and not allow constructionof circular arguments, and since there are no circular arguments, thedefinition of validity may simply bottom out in the stipulation that achallenge or an argument that nobody has chosen to rebut is valid.Alternative grounding conditions support other definitions of validity,such as a restriction to being grounded in the peer reviewed literature

It will be appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art thatfurther modifications to and variations of the above-described systemand method of supporting inference on computers and mobile devices maybe made without departing from the inventive concepts disclosed herein.Accordingly, the disclosure should not be viewed as limited except as bythe scope and spirit of the appended claims.

The present technology may also be configured as below.

(1) An apparatus including:a processing device configured to: receive first information indicatingstatements and arguments, and which statement of the statements is anintended result of an argument; receive second information indicatingchallenges to the statements or the arguments; establish acorrespondence between the statements and the arguments to nodes in agraph; and rate whether a first node of the nodes is established by anargument graph using only arguments that are not validly challenged.(2) The apparatus according to (1),wherein the first information indicates which statement of thestatements is an assumption of an argument, and wherein the processingdevice rates whether the first node of the nodes is established by theargument graph using only assumptions that are not validly challengedand the arguments that are not validly challenged.(3) The apparatus according to (1) or (2),wherein the first node is validly challenged when a challenge nodeexists that is established by an argument graph using only assumptionsand arguments that are not validly challenged.(4) The apparatus according to any one of (1) to (3),wherein the first node is validly challenged when a challenge nodeexists for the first node.(5) The apparatus according to any one of (1) to (4),wherein the first node is not validly challenged when every challenge tothe first node is validly rebutted by a counter challenge to saidchallenge or an argument graph thereof.(6) The apparatus according to any one of (1) to (5),wherein the processing device is further configured to receive thirdinformation indicating which of the statements or the nodes isdesignated as a citation, and wherein the first node is not rated asestablished unless the first node is a citation node or an argument forthe first node exists from another node of the nodes that is rated asestablished.(7) The apparatus according to any one of (1) to (6),wherein the processing device is further configured to receive thirdinformation indicating which of the statements, nodes or edges isdesignated as a suggested edit, and wherein, when a first edge of theedges is designated as the suggested edit, the first edge is notconsidered as an argument, assumption or challenge in rating the nodes.(8) The apparatus according to any one of (1) to (6),wherein the processing device is further configured to: receive thirdinformation indicating a set of choice nodes, rate at most one of eachset of choice nodes as established, and rate a first choice node of thechoice nodes as established, when an argument graph exists for the firstchoice node such that no node in an argument graph thereof is validlychallenged and no argument exists for other of the choice nodes in theset of choice nodes to which the first choice node belongs.(9) An apparatus including:a processing device configured to: receive first information indicatingnodes in a graph and directed edges, said edges indicating which firstnode of the nodes provides an argument for another node of the nodes,which second node of the nodes provides an assumption for another secondnode of the nodes, and which third node of the nodes provides achallenge to another third node of the nodes; receive second informationindicating text or data associated with the nodes; rate a first edge ofthe edges as established when the first edge originates at anestablished node of the nodes; and rate a node of the nodes asestablished (i) in a case when each incoming assumption edge thereof isestablished and no incoming challenge edge is established, and (ii) in acase when at least one incoming argument edge exists, at least one ofthe at least one incoming argument edge exists is established.(10) The apparatus according to (9),wherein the nodes in the graph are rated in order of increasing EDepth,andwherein the EDepth is a length of a longest path in said graph ending atsaid node corresponding thereto extending only over challenge, argument,assumption and citation edges.(11) The apparatus according to (9) or (10),wherein the processing device is further configured to: receive thirdinformation indicating which of the nodes is a citation nodes, andwherein a second node of the nodes is only rated as established when thesecond node is a citation node or has an established incoming argumentedge.(12) The apparatus according to any one of (9) to (11),wherein the processing device is further configured to: select a node ofthe nodes and a statement associated therewith is designated asaxiomatized, and rate other nodes of the nodes in the graph as the othernodes would be rated when an axiomatized node is established.(13) The apparatus according to any one of (9) to (12),wherein the processing device is further configured to: select a edge ofthe edges and attach a challenge to or insert a node within the selectededge and attach a challenge edge to the selected edge.(14) An apparatus including:a processing device configured to: receive first information indicatingnodes and directed edges of a graph, said edges indicating which firstnode of the nodes provides an argument for another node of the nodes,which second node of the nodes provides an assumption for another secondnode of the nodes and which third node of the nodes provides a challengeto another third node of the nodes; receive second informationindicating text or data associated with the nodes; and determine abelief for each respective node estimating (i) a likelihood that eachincoming assumption edge thereof is from a true node, (ii) when the nodehas at least one argument edge, at least one of the at least oneargument edge is from a true node, and (iii) no incoming challenge edgethereof is from a true node.(15) The apparatus according to (14),wherein the processing device is configured to: determine which node ofthe nodes provides a test for a fourth node, and receive thirdinformation indicating a likelihood a result of the test implies thefourth node is true when the test node itself is true and determine anumerical belief for all of the nodes in said graph.(16) The apparatus according to (14) or (15),wherein the processing device is configured to: receive thirdinformation indicating a new node entered by a user selecting anexisting node of the nodes, selecting an edge type and providing text ordata as a declaration for said new node, connect said new node to saidexisting node using an edge of said edge type.(17) The apparatus according to any one of (14) to (16),wherein the processing device is configured to: display an indication ofa reward in association with display of the graph for a successful ornon-trivial challenges.(18) A method including:receiving, by a processing device, first information indicatingstatements and arguments, which statement of the statements is anintended result of an argument; receiving, by the processing device,second information indicating challenges to the statements or thearguments; establishing, by the processing device, a correspondencebetween the statements and the arguments to nodes in a graph; andrating, by the processing device, whether a first node of the nodes isestablished by an argument graph using only arguments that are notvalidly challenged.(19) The method of according to (18),wherein the first information indicates which statement of thestatements is an assumption of an argument, andwherein the rating whether the first node of the nodes is established isby the argument graph using only assumptions that are not validlychallenged and the arguments that are not validly challenged.

1. An apparatus comprising: a processing device configured to control:receiving, over a communication network, first information in naturallanguage text from a user indicating statements and arguments, and whichstatement of the statements is an intended result of a given argument;receiving, over the communication network, second information in naturallanguage text from the user indicating challenges to the statements orthe arguments; establishing a correspondence between the statements andthe arguments to generate nodes in an argument graph; automaticallyupdating a Belief of each node of the nodes in the argument graph basedon a Proposed Belief (PB) respectively for the each node and causingtransmission, over the communication network, the argument graph asupdated, wherein the updating includes: assigning a value of 0 or 1 tothe each node in order of increasing Edepth thereof in the argumentgraph, according to the PB respectively of the each node, to define agiven configuration of the argument graph, in which the EDepth of agiven node of the nodes in the argument graph is a length of a longestpath in said argument graph ending at the given node; determining, atthe each node, numerical weights W0 and W1, wherein the numericalweights W0 and W1 at the each node are determined according to productsusing weights of a likelihood estimate (LE) of each test edge from atest node to the each node for respective given configurations of theargument graph, wherein the numerical weight W0 at the each node isdetermined by summing weights of respective given configurations of theargument graph where a value of 0 is assigned to the each node and thenumerical weight W1 at the each node is determined by summing weights ofgiven configurations of the argument graph where a value of 1 assignedto the each node; and determining, for the each node, the updated Beliefbased on the numerical weights W0 and W1 for the each node; andproviding to the user the updated argument graph indicating valuesindicating respectively the updated Beliefs corresponding to therespective nodes in the argument graph.
 2. The apparatus of claim 1,wherein the PB for a given node of the argument graph is user entered ora default value.
 3. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein a weight isdetermined for the given configuration of the argument graph bymultiplying an initialized weight by (i) the LE of each test edge from agiven test node having a value of 1 to a target node with a value of 1;(ii) 1−LE of each test edge from the given test node with a value 1 to atarget node with a value of 0; and (iii) 0.5 for each test edge from thegiven test node with a value of
 0. 4. The apparatus of claim 3, whereinthe numerical weight W1 or the numerical weight W0 for the each node ofthe argument graph is updated using the weight determined for the givenconfiguration according to whether the each node has a value 1 or 0 inthe given configuration.
 5. The apparatus of claim 4, wherein theupdated Belief at the each node is determined by dividing theprobability W1 thereof by a sum of the probability W1 thereof and theprobability W0 thereof.
 6. A method comprising: receiving, over acommunication network, by a processing device, first information innatural language text from a user indicating statements and arguments,and which statement of the statements is an intended result of a givenargument; receiving, over the communication network, by the processingdevice, second information in natural language text from the userindicating challenges to the statements or the arguments; establishing,by the processing device, a correspondence between the statements andthe arguments to generate nodes in an argument graph; automaticallyupdating, by the processing device, a Belief of each node of the nodesin the argument graph based on a Proposed Belief (PB) respectively forthe each node and causing transmission, over the communication network,by the processing device, the argument graph as updated, wherein theupdating includes: assigning a value of 0 or 1 to the each node in orderof increasing Edepth thereof in the argument graph, according to the PBrespectively of the each node, to define a given configuration of theargument graph, in which the EDepth of a given node of the nodes in theargument graph is a length of a longest path in said argument graphending at the given node; determining, at the each node, numericalweights W0 and W1, wherein the numerical weights W0 and W1 at the eachnode are determined according to products using weights of a likelihoodestimate (LE) of each test edge from a test node to the each node forrespective given configurations of the argument graph, wherein thenumerical weight W0 at the each node is determined by summing weights ofrespective given configurations of the argument graph where a value of 0is assigned to the each node and the numerical weight W1 at the eachnode is determined by summing weights of given configurations of theargument graph where a value of 1 assigned to the each node; anddetermining, for the each node, the updated Belief based on thenumerical weights W0 and W1 for the each node; and providing to theuser, by the processing device, the updated argument graph indicatingvalues indicating respectively the updated Beliefs corresponding to therespective nodes in the argument graph.
 7. The method of claim 6,wherein the PB for a given node of the argument graph is user entered ora default value.
 8. The method of claim 6, wherein a weight isdetermined for the given configuration of the argument graph bymultiplying an initialized weight by (i) the LE of each test edge from agiven test node having a value of 1 to a target node with a value of 1;(ii) 1−LE of each test edge from the given test node with a value 1 to atarget node with a value of 0; and (iii) 0.5 for each test edge from thegiven test node with a value of
 0. 9. The method of claim 8, wherein thenumerical weight W1 or the numerical weight W0 for the each node of theargument graph is updated using the weight determined for the givenconfiguration according to whether the each node has a value 1 or 0 inthe given configuration.
 10. The method of claim 9, wherein the updatedBelief at the each node is determined by dividing the probability W1thereof by a sum of the probability W1 thereof and the probability W0thereof.
 11. A non-transitory recording medium configured to store aprogram executable by a computer, the program comprising: receiving,over a communication network, first information in natural language textfrom a user indicating statements and arguments, and which statement ofthe statements is an intended result of a given argument; receiving,over the communication network, second information in natural languagetext from the user indicating challenges to the statements or thearguments; establishing a correspondence between the statements and thearguments to generate nodes in an argument graph; automatically updatinga Belief of each node of the nodes in the argument graph based on aProposed Belief (PB) respectively for the each node and causingtransmission, over the communication network, the argument graph asupdated, wherein the updating includes: assigning a value of 0 or 1 tothe each node in order of increasing Edepth thereof in the argumentgraph, according to the PB respectively of the each node, to define agiven configuration of the argument graph, in which the EDepth of agiven node of the nodes in the argument graph is a length of a longestpath in said argument graph ending at the given node; determining, atthe each node, numerical weights W0 and W1, wherein the numericalweights W0 and W1 at the each node are determined according to productsusing weights of a likelihood estimate (LE) of each test edge from atest node to the each node for respective given configurations of theargument graph, wherein the numerical weight W0 at the each node isdetermined by summing weights of respective given configurations of theargument graph where a value of 0 is assigned to the each node and thenumerical weight W1 at the each node is determined by summing weights ofgiven configurations of the argument graph where a value of 1 assignedto the each node; and determining, for the each node, the updated Beliefbased on the numerical weights W0 and W1 for the each node; andproviding to the user the updated argument graph indicating valuesindicating respectively the updated Beliefs corresponding to therespective nodes in the argument graph.